On Appeals beyond Constantinople, and to the Emperor

Balsamon, RP3, 134,
On the one hand the apostolic canons say that those justly deposed, that is to say those not having the help of an appeal, and who act as priests, are to be declared outlawed. But the present canon, which is like those, directs first that those who have been deposed by a fully authoritative synod (upo sunodou teleias), which is in Constantinople, and against which there is no appeal, not be received favourably by another synod, and directs secondly that..."

This raises a question, not strictly linked to the ecclesiastical primacy of the patriarch, of Balsamon's view of church and state. Balsamon is sometimes criticized for his support of secular power over the Church. Sometimes this seems justified; for instance in his exercise (melete)
"Concerning the Privileges of the Patriarchs", he remarked that "the service of the emperors includes the enlightening and strengthening of both the soul and the body; the dignity of the patriarchs is limited to the benefit of souls and to that only." [Balsamon, PG138, 1014-34. Translation here from Ernest Baker, Social and Political Thought in Byzantium, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957), p. 101.]
However, in his commentary here on Antioch, c.4, and on other similar canons, Balsamon insists ecclesiastical courts' decisons must not be appealed to the emperor. Since such appeals gave the emperor important opportunities to interfere in church affairs, for example in the Amisus case, Balsamon's repeated rejection of them does not accord well with charges of caeseropapism.

Antioch (341) c.12 - Percival 114; Balsamon PG137, 1307-1314 and RP3, 146-150. RP3, 146
But the appeal is not to be submitted to the ears of the emperor on account of this annoyance. If then somenone abandons going to a higher synod, and disputes the proper form of pleas of justification in the rules of appeal, and troubles the emperor about this, not only shall he derive no benefit by as one not being worthy of pardon, but all doors of justification will be fastened against him and he will have no hope of restoration.

Balsamon, RP3, 146
But if someone said that, since the canons say that the one deposed is not to turn to the emperor, but to a greater synod, one who was deposed by the bishop of Ephesus, or Thessalonic would be rightly compelled to turn to the ecumenical patriarch, but one who has been condmned by the patriarch, since he has nowhere else to flee to, shall he be punished for turning to the emperor or not?

Justinian, 137th Novel, as cited by Balsamon, RP3, 146
But if some most holy bishops of this same synod have some dispute with each other, either concerning ecclesiastical justice, or concerning some other matter, let their metropolitans examine the matter with two other bishops from the same synod, and if each side will not abide in the decisions, in this case let the most blessed patriarch of the province (diakeseos) hear the suit between then, and settle those things, in accord with the ecclesiastical canons and the civil laws, since none of the parties can speak against his decisions.

Balsamon comments on Justinian's Novel, RP3, 146
It seems to me that the canon was promulgated with a view to the decisions of the other bishops and metropolitans, but not assuredly about the decisions of the patriarchs, for the sentances of these are not subject to appeal. Therefore, he who goes to the emperor for the sake of the examnation in relation to an appeal decison of them, he is punished by the present canon.