Category: impeachment

Impeach bulagâ … 3 Articles dropped!

***

I could tell from lead prosecutor Rep. Jinky Luistro‘s face as she took to the podium that something was up, something serious, and she couldn’t seem to decide what kind of face to put on it, betrayed by a visible twitch from her usual pa-pleasant mien to pa-serious and resolute, even, grim, as befitted such a bombshell.

*

My immediate reaction when I heard Luistro citing, among other reasons, public impatience with the prolonged proceedings, was, HA? But is it good for the public na walang closure on the Grave Threats and Confidential Funds complaints? After all that, we get no final judgement on the two Articles, walang clear, firm, unambiguous decision from the senator-judges if the VP is impeachable or not on either charge? Bitin, di ba. Hindi nalalayo sa objection ng Defense na matapos “siraan” ng Prosecution ang VP over Grave Threats and Confidential Funds, biglang hindi na nila mailalahad ang kanilang alternative version of events.

*

But earlier in the proceedings, the Defense had the option to present their rebuttal, per Article, immediately after hearing the evidence of the Prosecution. They said no. Sabi nga ng isang Facebook friend:

Seems defense wanted prosecution to lay out all cards on all charges first, so defense could swoop in and rebut them all with whatever evidence they claim they have, and hope to memorably close trial with a strong last word on everything. The risk was, withdrawal of any charge could dispense with the court’s need to hear the defense’s response on what had already been presented. Defense played that game, which has turned out to be a big miscalculation.

Either hindi na-anticipate ng Defense ang galaw ng Prosecution, or na-anticipate nila but thought it couldn’t happen anymore once the Prosecution had presented their evidence, or sumugal sila at natalo.

*

Say ni lead Defense counsel Michael Poa sa Headstart, for Grave Threats they had planned to establish context — that the VP herself was under threat — and I imagine that they would have insisted it was just a “conditional threat”.  For Confidential Funds,  they were prepared to explain about Mary Grace Piattos atbp. Also, that they had planned to subpoena witnesses who are not aligned with the Defense, as in, hostile witnesses! Among them, sabi ng isang bubwit sa Facebook, sina Madriaga, Trillanes, at Matibag. Kung totoo, ‘twould have been quite a show.

*

But. We do not have the luxury of time to indulge in lengthy Defense theatrics, which would bring no closure anyway from the Senator-Judges on the two Articles. The Prosecution took 38 days to present some 40 witnesses for 3 Articles. How long kayâ would the Defense take to present some 90 witnesses (though that number includes witnesses for the Bribery charge that was dropped earlier)?  Tila hanggang March 2027 daw, if not later, given the Defense’s strategic delaying tactics that could include a run to the Supremes for this or that, hopefully to keep the Trial going until campaign period for 2028?  It could be another reason why they’re so upset about the Prosecution dropping three Articles. Kasi, ngayong isa na lang, yung Undeclared Wealth, may pag-asang matapos before Christmas, para magkaalaman na finally, and we could all plan accordingly.

*

As for the Defense’s complaint na nasiraan ang VP sa publiko nang bonggang-bongga over the Grave Threats and Confidential Funds hearings, parang hindi totoo. She still keeps topping the surveys, steady at some 50 % more or less, and I suspect that it has mostly to do with the Tatay being in jail and on trial in The Hague. Pakikiramay baga. Which should tell us that we need to get our act together, literally and figuratively, to unite the other 50 % behind one candidate in 2028, and to make ligaw some of her 50 %, for a fighting chance man lang, or else.

***

Impeach bulagâ … China connection?

Nakakaligalig naman talaga ang alleged China konekt ni VP Sara, and Atty. Joel Ruiz Butuyan is right: We must give full attention to evidence that will be presented in the coming days, given testimony and documents showing that P319 million deposited in her husband’s company, Cale88 Foods Corp., came from China and Hong Kong. Sana totoo ang say ng mga DDS na wala itong kinalaman sa Chinese government o na hindi ito pahiwatig ng pagkiling ng mga Duterte sa China sa isyung West Philippine Sea. Diin pa ng DDS vloggers, bakit okay lang ang pagkiling ng Marcos government sa Amerika, na may access sa siyam (9) na EDCA bases?

Totoo naman na the ideal is for the Philippines as a sovereign country to deal even-handedly with both the U.S. and China, but China makes it really difficult. Sabi nga ni Florin Hilbay sa Facebook: China has inflicted damage to the livelihood of Filipino fishermen, destroyed large areas of the marine environment in the WPS, casually and repeatedly harassed our own navy, and continues to disrespect the 2016 arbitral award in our favor. That harm is direct—it affects our national security, economy, sovereignty, and dignity as Filipinos. 

CRESCENDO OF EVIDENCE IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
Joel Ruiz Butuyan

From the kind of evidence the prosecution has started presenting this week, the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte is entering a very interesting stage. It clearly appears that the evidence being presented is reaching its crescendo, and the prosecution is aiming to end on a high note.

In a case that has enormous political impact, in addition to its judicial objective, it makes a lot of sense for the prosecution to curate the presentation of its evidence. The prosecution has struggled to capture the electorate’s attention since the impeachment trial started on July 6, 2026. In fact, public viewership of the trial waned from the beginning until recently. It’s not hard to understand why.

First, the series of evidence presented by the prosecution for the three-month period from July to September was evidence that was either already long known to, or already expected without any surprise by the public. These include the public threats to kill issued by VP Sara against the President, the first lady, and the then Speaker of the House of Representatives; the respondent’s misuse of outrageous amounts of confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education; and evidence of real estate, firearms, and business interests of VP Sara.

The second reason why the public was bored into inattention is because the proceedings were dominated by squabbling on technicalities between the parties’ lawyers and the grandstanding monologues of senator-judges. The members of the public who have full-time day jobs refuse to sit through hours of bickering on what are frivolous issues to the common people.

The kinds of evidence that are coming out this week are expected to generate strong interest and intense attention from the public, however. The pieces of evidence that are emerging are the sort of documents and monetary numbers that are kept in highly secured vaults or protected with thick layers of concealment. It is not only the amounts of money involved that are catching people’s attention, but the nature and sources of those funds.

So far this week, prosecution evidence shows 666 covered transaction reports and 55 suspicious transaction reports involving VP Sara and her husband totaling an eye-popping amount of P4.4 billion. Evidence has also been introduced showing that inward financial transactions totaling P319 million were deposited in a company called Cale88 Foods Corp., owned by VP Sara’s husband. Evidence has likewise been presented showing that the joint accounts of VP Sara and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, recorded P194 million in transactions in a single day on March 28, 2014.

VP Sara has a lot of explaining to do as to why those humongous amounts were not reflected in her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth. The late Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona was convicted in his impeachment trial for his nondisclosure of his bank deposits amounting to $2.4 million and P80.7 million, which are far smaller compared to the amounts associated with VP Sara.

But what is most disturbing from the recent revelations is not only how huge the amounts are because we’ve been numbed by the numbers involved in corruption scandals involving our public officials. There is testimony presented that some of those amounts came from a suspected drug lord, a certain Samuel Uy. Other amounts received by VP Sara or her husband are allegedly connected with graft and corrupt practices related to the Department of Public Works and Highways’ flood control issue. Still other amounts are allegedly connected with shabu importation. Lastly, there is testimony and there are documents allegedly showing that the P319 million deposited in VP Sara’s husband’s company, Cale88 Foods Corp., came from China and Hong Kong. In the succeeding hearing dates, we expect the prosecution to present more evidence to substantiate these predicate pieces of evidence.

Filipinos must give full attention to the evidence that will be presented in the coming days because we may be witnessing damning evidence that the second highest official of our country has committed traitorous acts by receiving illegal funds from the one country that has usurped our maritime waters, harassed our fisherfolk, and assaulted our security forces. In all past impeachment and criminal complaints against our public officials, they have been confined to cases of corruption. Receiving bribe money from a foreign country that treats us as an enemy is an unparalleled crime against our country and our people.

In the words of Armed Forces of the Philippines spokesperson Jay Tarriela, “[c]orruption may rob the nation of its wealth, but treason robs it of its soul.”

 

The Senate on Trial

After hearing from Amici Curiae in the Senate Impeachment Court, my first reaction was, bakit puro lalaki?  Dahil walang former Chief Justice na babae? Pero Associate Justice din lang yung isa, kahit pa kasali siya sa nag-frame ng 1987 Constitution. Wala bang former AJ na babae na qualified to weigh in, just in case may naiibang pananaw o angle o retorika?

Not that the men disappointed. Adequately explained naman ang two sides of the argument: yung 16 as immutable or fixed threshold (AJ Adolf Azcuna) VS. yung adjustable 2/3 of the members in attendance (CJs Hilario Davide, Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno). Ibig sabihin: 16 votes needed to impeach — kung 2/3 of 24 senators; 14 votes needed — kung 2/3 of 20, absent Estrada and Marcoleta, Bato and Loren).

BALL’S IN YOUR COURT, SENATE….
My major major take-away is that  the ex-CJ Supremes were unanimous on: the Senate Court’s “sole” power  to interpret and to promulgate rules relating to the Impeachment. Ibig sabihin, the Senators will have to resolve the issues by their collegial lonesomes. Hindi maaasahan, as of the moment, ang Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. Unless, of course, the Supremes of today deem otherwise?

Siyempre the DDS bloc (7 of 11 show up intermittently) deeply wish to abide by the fixed 16 votes (kunwari everybody present) — yan daw ang ibig sabihin ng Constitution sa “2/3 of all the members,” na pinanindigan pa ni Justice Azcuna. Pahihirapan ang current Majority of 13 to come up with 3 more votes.

At siyempre the DDS bloc want Estrada and Marcoleta to be allowed to attend the hearings either electronically or in person, and supplied with copies of transcripts atbp. para makaboto din sila. Ang tanong, para que? For what? For the numbers man lang, para madagdagan ang bilang nila, in case mabawasan pa dahil BAKA may makasuhan at makulong pang iba?

WHAT IF WE RAISE THE BAR
What kind of Senate is this na ang daming miyembro na may kaso, o may nagbabadyang kaso, for plunder atbp. What if, sa 2028, i-ban ng Comelec from running for election anyone with a pending corruption case? Itigil na yang innocent-until-proven-guilty eklat. Lalo pa kung flood-control-scam related ang kaso — itrato silang guilty-until-proven-innocent, and, therefore, not qualified to run for public office or deserving of public trust until declared innocent by the courts.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
Believe it or not, the legal maxim “innocent until proven guilty” is based on the long questioned, always challenged, premise that humans are inherently good — isinilang tayo na mabait — therefore daw, if accused of wrongdoing, it is more likely that you are innocent rather than guilty.  Pero hindi ba kabaligtaran iyan ng Catholic premise of “original sin” na ating kinagisnan kinalakhan at pinaniniwalaan, and which is why mayroong Baptism, Confession, and Communion, even Extreme Unction, ang Simbahan as cleansing Sacraments?

Maybe the two most famous opposing views on this debate are those of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes describes humans as ‘nasty’ and ‘brutish’, needing society and rules to reign in their instincts in order to thrive; later Rousseau openly criticised him, arguing instead that man would be gentle and pure without the corruption of greed and inequality caused by the class system imposed by our society. https://www.bbcearth.com/

Let the burden be on the accused senators and congressmen — first come first served — to prove that they’re innocent, and if they cannot, likely because their SALNs and bank accounts and maybe new whistleblowers say otherwise, then ipagkukulong sila. No ifs or buts, no house or hospital arrests, No Mercy.

FOR NOW, LOOKING FORWARD TO ORAL ARGUMENTS

Sept 23 the Court is set to hear oral arguments from the prosecution and defense on the threshold question, after which the Senators will decide, although Sen Ping is asking to sleep on it before voting. Nang mapag-isipan nang mabuti. Oo nga naman. It will be quite a show.

SONA. Systems Loss. Sara.

May all of PBBM‘s promises come true, except Pax Silica and nuclear power. Pax Silica dahil napaka-major-major move pero hindi malinaw kung makikinabang talaga tayo o pinagsasamantalahan at pagkakakitaan lang tayo as usual. Nuclear power dahil lumang tugtugin na, may Bataan Nuclear Power Plant na noong 1984, 1985 na pinagkagastusan natin nang katakut-takot, pero kahit si Marcos Sr. ay nag-atubiling i-switch on ito, balikan natin kung bakit nga ba!

***

Winner! ang pangakong hindi niya poprotektahan ang mga kamag-anak at kaibigan na may kaso sa Ombdusman. Winner! din ang pro-Pinoy rhetoric re sovereignty and the West Philippine Sea without naming da mang-aagaw. Pinaka-Winner! ang utos, demand, ng Presidente na itigil ang pagsingil ng Systems Loss (at VAT nito) sa mga consumer ng koryente.

***

Systems Loss. Komplikadong usapin dahil sinong magbabayad, tanong ng mga kapitalista. Hindi pala obvious na sila mismo ang dapat mag-absorb, lalo na yung mga kumikita ng bilyonbilyon taontaon. Ano ba naman yung mabawasan ng kaunti ang tubò nila, moderate the greed, ika nga ni Jun Lozada, lalo na’t electricity is an essential necessity. At huwag sabihing business isn’t good with the oil crisis and Middle East war auguring a global recession atbp. Kung hindi good for you guys, can you please try and imagine how bad, how much worse, it is for the masses who have made you rich? Maybe think of it as pay-back time? Good for the soul. Good for the karma.

***

Sara. Senado. Hindi naman totoo ang say ni Amy Pamintuan ng PhilStar at Storycon na “people are bored out of their skulls and tuning out of the impeachment trial.” We do mute the sound haha, pag paulit-ulit o paikot-ikot ang balitaktakan o di namin type ang senator-judge na nagdradramang defense attorney ng VP, but it’s only to take a break, and bumabalik-balik pag umuusad na uli. Otherwise there’s no tuning out of this impeachment trial, no way.

***

Selective justice nga ba ang nagpakulong kina Marcoleta at Defensor, Estrada at Revilla? Parang hindi naman. Yung mga kaso nina Estrada at Revilla, Napoles scam pa, PNoy admin pa, and it’s about time. Mas bago yung kina Marcoleta at Defensor, pero napabilis ang gulong dahil umamin na si Marcoleta (which he now denies, though I’m not sure what exactly he’s denying).

Coincidence ba, nagkataon lang ba, na puro sila DDS? Teka, DDS ba si Revilla? Hindi ko sure, ika nga, pero kahit pa sabihing hindi coincidence — sinadya silang unahing patulan ng Ombudsman kung kailan merong impeachment trial vs the VP — it doesn’t make them innocent of the crimes alleged against them. And it wouldn’t mean that they deserve to serve as senator-judges.

Besides, what difference would it make kung papayagan sina Marcoleta at Estrada na mag-attend ng impeachment trial bilang senator-judges. Sigurado naman that they would vote to acquit anyway, so what would be the point? Pahahabain lang nila ang proceedings, dadagdag pa sa mga atungal ng DDS bloc. Spare us, please.

*