Restrained

The Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of its earlier ruling regarding the impeachment case filed against Sara Duterte was met with the expected volume of controversy. The Court ruled last year that the sloppy impeachment process launched by the House of Representatives was unconstitutional – mainly because it failed to pass the test of due process.

The Court was criticized for “judicial overreach.” Others claimed the magistrates were legislating from the bench. The Senate President gregariously declared the reaffirmation made impeachment henceforth “impossible” – a claim that defies the fact that several impeachment complaints have just been filed adhering to the procedures required by the Court’s ruling.

Most of the criticisms gloss over the fact that the Supreme Court, although unelected, enjoys equal standing as the other two branches of government. It is commanded by the Constitution to ensure that due process is always duly observed and to prevent grave abuse by government.

Unlike the executive and legislative branches of government, however, the Court arrives at its decisions through careful examination of the law as well as precedents. It is not animated by the desire to win popularity contests. The law may be harsh, but it is the law. Dura lex, sed lex.

Also, the Supreme Court tries its best to stand above the political fray. The bench speaks through its rulings instead of engaging in verbal brawls. It is not about to descend from its perch to engage in tit-for-tat. Decorum is important in asserting the majesty of the law.

Every Court ruling is the product of careful reflection on the law. This is why the Court takes time in issuing its rulings. It is never haphazard in rendering its opinions – especially on questions such as constitutionality. This is why the Constitution is never a dead document.

Recall that when urgent petitions for a restraining order were brought before the Court relating to the arrest of former president Rodrigo Duterte, the magistrates did not succumb to the urgencies of the moment. This did not represent a decision regarding the constitutional adequacy of the arrest. It was simply a refusal to render a judgment without the benefit of collective circumspection.

When the constitutionality of the haphazard House impeachment of the Vice President was questioned before the Court, it took several months for the Court to finally rule on it. The magistrates would rather be late than reckless. Every ruling that emanates from the bench, after all, becomes precedent for future judicial issues.

When a motion for reconsideration was filed regarding the Court’s ruling of unconstitutionality in this case, it took several more months for the magistrates to consider all the legal angles before reaffirming its first ruling. This is evident in the refinement of several minor issues found in the reaffirmation. The Court is conscious of its own boundaries. Its rulings are intended to stand the test of time.

In all instances, the Court seeks to stand above the politics of the moment. Chosen on the basis of merit rather than on a popular vote, the Court is better equipped to be insulated from the politics of the moment. Its rulings are shaped by the constancy of the law rather than by the desire to be popular.

Over the next few weeks we will see the effects of the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of its ruling in the various impeachment proceedings initiated against both the President and the Vice President. The proceedings will be markedly different from last year’s unserious impeachment attempt. They will be more disciplined and more respectful for due process.

This will enrich our democracy in so many ways. The elected branches of our government are sometimes heir to the contingencies of daily politics.

There should be better appreciation of the role the judiciary plays in our democratic scheme of things.

Deescalated

Finance Secretary Frederick Go says the 4.4 percent GDP growth we posted last year was not a disaster. Economic Planning Secretary Arsi Balisacan says, without providing much evidence, that “strong fundamentals” will propel a higher growth rate this year.

Several economic think tanks, however, project that growth in 2026 will not likely be more robust that the rate we posted for 2025. Our economy has moved into a lower growth plane. We will likely be stuck in this lower growth plane for the rest of the current presidential term.

A slower economic growth is not a disaster per se. But it means that hundreds of thousands of Filipino families will continue to be trapped in poverty. The rule of thumb has been to sustain a growth rate of seven percent to make a real dent in our poverty profile.

The last time our growth rate suffered a sharp decline was when former president Noynoy Aquino suspended infrastructure spending to avert the corruption associated with them. Even as the Aquino administration reversed course just as abruptly by diving into a more scandal-prone Disbursement Acceleration Program, it took about six quarters for our economy to recover its growth bearings.

It might require about the same time to return to a higher growth plane this time. But unlike 2012, government will have more limited fiscal space to fuel a bounce to the next higher growth plane. The enlargement of our debt greatly outpaced the expansion of our domestic economy.

The huge drop in confidence will make investors and lenders more hesitant.