MANILA – The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on Thursday voiced its support for the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives, describing the decision as a reinforcement of constitutional order and a vital check on political power.
In an official statement, the IBP said the ruling is “not merely about judicial review or impeachment,” but about “the enduring architecture of a constitutional order where power is limited, roles are defined, and accountability flows through process.”
The case has stirred debate over the separation of powers in the Philippine government, with the Court affirming its authority to review actions related to impeachment—traditionally the domain of Congress. The ruling has sparked criticism from some political sectors, who argue that the judiciary is encroaching on legislative prerogatives.
The IBP, the national organization of Filipino lawyers, said the Court’s decision reflects the proper function of checks and balances in a democracy. “We dignify” the Court’s role in interpreting constitutional limitations, the group said, even on politically sensitive matters such as impeachment.
“Impeachment occupies a distinct and indispensable place in our constitutional order,” the statement said, but noted that its political nature “does not place it beyond the reach of judicial review.”
The bar group warned against calls to reject the Court’s ruling outright, saying such actions risk destabilizing the legal system. “To incite public repudiation of its authority… erodes the very foundations of the legal order,” the IBP said, adding that such moves “imperil the integrity of our democratic institutions.”
The statement concluded with a call for adherence to legal processes, asserting that defending the rule of law also means defending the sovereignty of the people. “We defend the sovereignty of the people, from whom all authority flows and to whom all must answer.”
The Supreme Court has not issued a separate statement beyond its published decision. Presidential and Congressional responses to the ruling have been mixed, with some lawmakers questioning the judiciary’s reach while others called for respect of its constitutional mandate.