Grave abuse of ‘grave abuse:’ In SC, we have dictators in robes

In the 21,660-word Philippine Constitution, one phrase is mentioned with extreme parsimony – grave abuse. It is mentioned only once. As an adjective, “grave” is used only once.

In our Constitution, “right” is mentioned 84 times; “people” 36 times; “freedom” seven times; “budget” (the source of all graft) five times and “economy” (the source of our livelihood) also five times.

Why the sparing mention of “grave abuse?” Because grave abuse is such an enormous crime the framers of the Constitution probably wanted the people to forget about it.

Grave abuse of discretion (GAD) amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction is not even mentioned in the 8,116-word US Constitution after which Philippine constitutions are patterned. GAD also does not exist in the British Constitution, where the concept of rule of law is paramount.

The 47 framers of the 1987 Constitution embedded GAD as among the crimes our Supreme Court must tackle or stop. To uphold the rule of law.

Their idea in 1986: Prevent another Marcos dictatorship. The late Ferdinand Edralin Marcos Sr. was so brilliant a lawyer and ruler he convinced the Supreme Court, under the 1935 Constitution, that it could not touch or stop him on issues involving political questions. Like martial law. Rule and legislation by decree. The enormous commander-in-chief powers of the president of the Philippines.

One person, Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, who installed herself a dictator, named all the 47 commissioners who wrote the 1987 Constitution; all 47 were not elected, but handpicked by a person who also was not duly elected, as president. They were an angry group. Angry at Marcos. Angry at his dictatorship. The unelectable decided the fate of the elected.

The 1987 Con-Com wrote into Article VIII, Judicial Department, the GAD power of the Supreme Court. Judicial power shall be vested in the Supreme Court (Section 1). “Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”

With GAD, no more political questions that the Supreme Court cannot rule on. Chasing GAD made our Supreme Court the most powerful branch of the government. More powerful than the President (Executive branch). More powerful than either the Senate or the House of Representatives (Legislative branch). Any crime or apparent wrongdoing that the Constitution cannot define or any existing law cannot define, it must be GAD – grave abuse of discretion.

The impact of GAD? It made our Supreme Court a court of dictators. Dictators in robes. With unlimited powers. What the 1987 Constitution tries to stop in having a president as a dictator, the same Constitution promotes in the Supreme Court a collegial dictatorship. The Supreme Court today is no different from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China. A collegial dictatorship.

But who will tell the Supreme Court it is committing GAD itself? No one. Not even God Himself.

Impeachment should overthrow the Chief Justice and his justices committing GAD. But how can that be done when in the SC’s 13-0 ruling (Sara Duterte vs. House of Representatives) of July 25, 2025, the high court made more difficult the rules of impeachment?

Can you imagine a defendant facing the judge and telling him: “Hey, Judge, I, the accused, am going to tell you how you will conduct my case, I tell you the rules just now, which rules you must follow, what documents I must produce.” Surely, the judge will kick the defendant’s ass and defenestrate him.

In its July 25, 2025 decision, the SC defined when an impeachment case is initiated, overthrowing the previous definition that was used by the House of Representatives in filing the fourth Articles of Impeachment (AI) against Sara Duterte before the Senate on Feb. 5, 2025. Because the new definition was applied retroactively, the SC declared the fourth impeachment case before the Senate unconstitutional.

Protests former Justice Adolf Azcuna, himself a Con-Com member: “The Supreme Court’s newly pronounced definition of ‘initiate,’ contrary to its own prevailing definition, would not only be unfair if applied retroactively,  but would even as applied prospectively, unduly constrain the House of Representatives in the exercise of its EXCLUSIVE power to initiate ALL cases of impeachment (Art XI, Sec 3, Subsec 1 of the Philippine Constitution).”

Azcuna contends: “The new rules of the Supreme Court, unless reconsidered, would add a plethora of requirements ranging from prior notice to attaching the evidence to requiring proof that the Representatives read and understood the charges and the supporting evidence. All these will effectively render it almost impossible to carry out the intended accountability procedure. Furthermore, if allowed to stand, it will effectively amend the Constitution, which even the Supreme Court has no power to do.”

Is that fair?  No, of course not. But who will tell the SC they committed GAD?

The SC did not bother to call the parties to an in-person hearing or oral argument. The biggest and most celebrated constitutional case of this century was decided, by email. Wow!  Is that due process? No of course. But who will tell the SC they committed GAD?

Concludes Azcuna: “The powers granted the House of Representatives to initiate all cases of impeachment and the Senate to try and decide the same are CONSTITUENT POWERS – sovereign powers specifically assigned and lodged by the Constitution to a specific and particular organ or body of government. And the cardinal rule in regard to Constituent Powers is that WHERE THE CONSTITUTION PUTS IT, THERE IT SHOULD LIE.”

Meanwhile, the trust ratings of both VP Sara and SP Chiz Escudero have fallen.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]