𝐈𝐬 A𝐧𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 A𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 L𝐚𝐰?

In a democracy, the rule of law is not merely a legal doctrine—it is a moral compass, a civic covenant, and a bulwark against tyranny. It is the promise that power must answer to principle, and that justice must not be swayed by rank, wealth, or influence. In our jurisdiction, the principle that “no one is above the law” is both a constitutional promise and a historical reckoning. It demands that power be accountable, that justice be impartial, and that every citizen, whether peasant or president, stand equal before the law’s gaze.

Historical Reckonings and Unfinished Justice

The Philippines has endured periods where the law bent to the will of the powerful. At such time, the law was not a shield but a weapon; it was wielded to silence dissent, to suppress the truth, and to protect the powerful. During the Martial Law era under Ferdinand Marcos Sr., legal instruments such as executive orders, military tribunals, and emergency decrees were repurposed to legitimize repression. Thousands were tortured, disappeared, or killed. And yet, decades later, many perpetrators evaded accountability, not through innocence, but through influence.

Among the most searing symbols of this impunity was the assassination of Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. on August 21, 1983. Shot on the tarmac of Manila International Airport upon returning from exile, Aquino’s death was a political murder that exposed the brutality of authoritarian rule. Though 16 individuals were eventually convicted, the full truth behind the assassination and the forces that orchestrated it remained clouded by silence and state complicity.

Aquino’s killing transformed him from opposition leader into martyr, igniting a national awakening. It galvanized mass resistance, culminating in the 1986 People Power Revolution that ousted Marcos. Yet the long delay in justice and the absence of full institutional reckoning underscored how deeply power can distort the law.

Today, that legacy continues to evolve. In September 2025, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee launched a sweeping investigation into alleged corruption in flood control projects funded by climate-tagged expenditures. Whistleblowers and former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials testified to the existence of ghost projects, kickbacks, and budget insertions implicating at least six senators (four incumbents and two former lawmakers).

Contractors Curlee and Sarah Discaya, along with engineers Henry Alcantara, Brice Hernandez, and Jaypee Mendoza, were placed under witness protection. The Climate Change Commission revealed that nearly half of the DPWH’s ₱754 billion climate-tagged funds had gone to flood control projects—many of which were substandard, abandoned, or never built. Vulnerable communities were left exposed to disaster, while public funds flowed into consultancy contracts and political pockets.

This controversy shows how impunity adapts: cloaked not in martial decrees, but in infrastructure budgets and climate rhetoric. When justice is delayed or denied, when investigations stall and prosecutions falter, the law loses its moral force. It becomes a privilege, not a principle.

The prior case of Janet Lim Napoles and several lawmakers is emblematic of this tension. Napoles was convicted for her central role in the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam, where billions in public funds were funneled into fake NGOs and ghost projects. Her conviction was grounded in a clear paper trail, whistleblower testimony, and financial records.

Yet many lawmakers allegedly involved, some accused of receiving tens of millions in kickbacks, were acquitted or never charged. Courts cited insufficient evidence, lack of direct proof, or failure to meet the threshold for plunder. In People v. Revilla, for instance, the Sandiganbayan acquitted Senator Bong Revilla of plunder, while convicting his aide and Napoles, noting that the prosecution failed to prove Revilla’s personal receipt of the funds. Other lawmakers also found their way out of this web of deceit, fraud and dishonesty. They remain unaccountable to date.

This outcome reveals a paradox: the architect of the scheme was punished, but many alleged beneficiaries walked free. The law demanded proof, and power had mastered the art of leaving none. It is a sobering reminder that justice must not only be pursued; it must be proven. And when the law fails to reach the powerful, it is not just a legal gap. It is a civic wound.

A Shimmering Light

Despite these setbacks, the Supreme Court has continued to affirm the principle that no one is above the law.

“No one is above the law, least of all those who are duty-bound to uphold it.”
This was the highlight of Associate Justice Alfredo Caguioa’s keynote speech on September 8, 2023, during the 2nd Investigating Commissioner’s Summit of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline.

In People v. Pagal, the Supreme Court, citing Secretary of Justice vs Lantion, reminded us of the law’s protective purpose:

“The individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis-a-vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government, and his only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights.”

In Estrada v. Desierto and Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court confronted a constitutional crisis: Was President Joseph Estrada ousted illegally, and could he still claim immunity from prosecution?

The Court applied the totality of circumstances test, concluding that Estrada had effectively resigned through his conduct: his departure from Malacañang, his acknowledgment of Arroyo’s oath-taking, and his written statement transmitting power. The Court ruled that Arroyo’s assumption of the presidency was constitutional under Section 11, Article VII, and that Estrada, no longer President, was no longer immune from suit.

These rulings affirmed that even the highest office in the land is subject to constitutional limits. They clarified that impeachment is not a shield against criminal liability, and that presidential immunity ends with tenure. These decisions form a jurisprudential compass, pointing toward accountability, even when the path is politically fraught.


Our Constitution emphasizes the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. An independent judiciary is crucial for ensuring that laws are applied fairly and impartially. Judges must be free from political influence and pressure, and their decisions must be based on the law and the evidence presented. The integrity of the judiciary is essential for maintaining public trust in the legal system. That is why even as they sit on their throne being the judge or the justice, no one is still immune from the stretches of the law.

In 2018, the first female chief of the Supreme Court (SC) was ousted through quo warranto proceedings, marking the first of its kind. In citing the case of Francisco Jr. vs the House of Representatives, the SC in Republic vs Sereno, ruled that “the Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court. All public officers whether in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial departments are bound to follow the law. If the public officer violates the law, he or she shall suffer punishment, sanction and adverse consequences. The obligatory force of law is necessary because once we allowed exceptions, concessions, waiver, suspension or non-application to those who do not want to follow the law, nobody else will obey the law.”
The ratiocination in these cases must be so for we are a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Citizens have a responsibility to hold their government accountable, to demand transparency, and to participate in the democratic process.

Still, the fight must continue. A democracy matures not by silencing dissent but by listening to it. Upholding the law means protecting those who challenge power, not punishing them.

In our jurisdiction, nemo est supra leges is not just a legal ideal; it is a call to conscience. It asks every Filipino to reject impunity, to demand fairness, and to believe that justice is not reserved for the few. The rule of law must be our lighthouse: unwavering, impartial, and immune to the tides of power. No one sails above its beam.