THE Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has voiced its support for the Supreme Court’s authority in striking down the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte, while firmly warning against any calls to defy the Court’s decision.
In a statement released on August 1, 2025, the country’s official organization of lawyers stressed that the Supreme Court’s intervention was not just judicial review, but a necessary assertion of constitutional balance.
“The enduring architecture of a constitutional order where power is limited, roles are defined, and accountability flows through process,” the IBP said.
While acknowledging that the House of Representatives holds the exclusive power to initiate impeachment proceedings, the IBP clarified that the Supreme Court must interpret the Constitution, especially when legal processes are in dispute.
The IBP emphasized that the political nature of impeachment does not shield it from judicial scrutiny, citing the Constitution’s provision allowing the judiciary to check excesses by other branches of government. It described the Court as the final arbiter of constitutional questions and a crucial guardian of checks and balances.
The organization acknowledged that public debate on the Court’s decision is a sign of a healthy democracy, but condemned any suggestion to reject or defy the High Court’s authority.
“To incite public repudiation of its authority, or even just to call for its outright defiance, erodes the very foundations of the legal order,” the IBP warned. “Treating unfavorable rulings as grounds for disobedience threatens the rule of law and the stability of democratic institutions.”
The group concluded by reaffirming its commitment to upholding due process and the rule of law as vital pillars of national sovereignty and democratic governance.
The IBP’s statement comes amid public attention over the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision on July 25, 2025, declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional and void. The Court ruled 13–0, with two justices abstaining.
The decision was based on the “one-year bar rule” in the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from initiating more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a year. The Court also ruled that Duterte’s right to due process was violated, as she was not given a fair opportunity to review the complaint and evidence before it was transmitted to the Senate.
By invalidating the complaint, the Court effectively prevented the Senate from taking jurisdiction over the case. However, the justices clarified that the ruling does not clear Duterte of the allegations, but merely concludes that the complaint, as filed, was procedurally flawed and constitutionally barred.
Following the ruling, some constitutional experts and members of the UP Law faculty expressed concern that the decision could open the door to abuse, where weak or premature complaints are filed deliberately to exploit the one-year ban and shield officials from legitimate accountability.
Under the ruling, any new impeachment case against Duterte may only be filed after February 6, 2026. RGP
