THE SUPREME COURT exercised judicial restraint by declining to halt impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, and urged the justices to allow Congress to carry out its constitutional duty.
Despite its broad constitutional authority to review the acts of the political branches, the Court’s decision not to intervene in the impeachment case was a clear demonstration of restraint.
The Supreme Court did not issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the House of Representatives’ impeachment proceedings against Duterte.
According to former Senate President Franklin Drilon,
the High Court’s exercise of judicial restraint has allowed the impeachment process to proceed.
Drilon, who also served as Justice Secretary, explained that the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to correct grave abuses of discretion committed by any branch of government, a power that has been broadly interpreted to cover even the President and Congress. He noted that SC’s expanded judicial authority was introduced under the 1987 Constitution and did not exist in the 1935 Constitution.
He emphasized the framers of the 1987 Constitution consciously expanded the Court’s authority to check the other branches of government.
“Today, we see a very powerful Supreme Court, and these powers were consciously granted by the framers of the Constitution. They found it essential that the Supreme Court be given the authority to check the Executive and Congress,” Drilon said. “Given that broad power, the Court can correct all grave abuses of discretion which, in its judgment, require correction.”
Despite that authority, Drilon said the Court deserved praise for staying out of the impeachment proceedings and allowing the impeachment process to proceed.
“Thus, I am glad that the Supreme Court, in its recent actions, has refrained from getting involved in the impeachment process,” he said. “I take my hat off to the Supreme Court for the judicial restraint it has exercised, especially in the latest petitions filed to restrain Congress from performing its constitutional duty of impeachment.”
As such, Drilon reminded Congress to carry out its responsibilities.
He added that the current constitutional debates were significant for the legal community and the public.
“We live in very interesting times, particularly for law students, lawyers, and the public in general,” Drilon said.
“My memoir, in many of its pages, describes the interplay of powers among these different branches of government. I myself was in the middle of many of those conflicts when I was sued right and left because of the decisions I made as Senate President.”
Drilon, who attended high school at what was then known as the University of the Philippines Iloilo College — now University of the Philippines Visayas — also addressed the law students in attendance.
“For the law students present in this room, this memoir is a testament to the law as a living, breathing instrument,” he said. “In the legal profession, we often focus on the what—the statutes, the precedents, the black-letter law. Being Frank hopefully shows you the how. It illustrates the temperament required to uphold the rule of law when political winds are blowing in the opposite direction.”
