Category: impeachment

Ituloy ang impeachment

Of course the Duterte camp is again whining against the VP’s impeachment, not just because she’s innocent daw but also because of the economic and energy emergencies that deserve daw the full attention and resources of government. Nakakapagpa-dalawang-isip naman talaga. Except that this is a take-two, nakialam kasi ang Supremes in 2025, and postponing again would be to set an umistakeable and virulent pattern. Former senator and defense chief Orly Mercado is right, “Unresolved scandals breed repetition…. When justice is delayed in the name of stability, both are often lost.” Nasimulan na rin lang, ipagpatuloy na hangga’t kaya.

THE SWORD ABOVE POWER 
Orlando Mercado

THERE are times when power must be reminded of its limits.

The impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte come at an unfortunate moment of global anxiety. With the ongoing war in the Middle East, rising energy prices, and fears of a recession, some now argue that this is not the time. They say that leadership attention should be focused elsewhere, particularly in helping Filipinos navigate volatility.

It’s a convenient argument. It is also a dangerous one.

More than two millennia ago, Cicero retold the story of Damocles, a courtier who envied a king’s power until he saw a sword hanging above the throne by a single thread. In that instant, he understood that power is never without peril. This image endures because it captures a truth that remains unchanged: Authority always carries within it the possibility of its own undoing. That is the Sword of Damocles.

Public office does not insulate one from accountability. It demands it. The higher the office, the sharper the obligation. Delaying the impeachment proceedings because the world is in crisis is a grave misunderstanding of governance. Crises do not suspend the rule of law; they test its resilience and expose its limits. If accountability can be postponed for convenience, then it’s no longer accountability. To pause the process for external events is to suggest fragility where there should be resilience.

History is unforgiving on this point. When justice is delayed in the name of stability, both are often lost. Public trust erodes, cynicism deepens, and institutions weaken. Our own political history offers several reminders of what happens when accountability is deferred in the name of expediency. By the time the next crisis arrives, the damage has already been done, and the state finds itself standing on hollow ground.

We have seen this before, yet we continue to ignore it at our own peril. Unresolved scandals breed repetition. Selective accountability breeds impunity. Over time, the public ceases to expect justice, which becomes the most dangerous erosion of all.

Impeachment, therefore, is a test of institutional character. It tests whether our institutions can function under pressure, whether power remains subject to law, and whether we still believe that no one is above scrutiny — especially those who occupy the highest offices. Addressing economic uncertainty while upholding accountability should not be treated like an extraordinary feat. It is the baseline expectation of a functioning state.

To proceed swiftly is not to ignore global threats. It is to strengthen our footing in facing them. After all, a government that strictly enforces accountability at home commands credibility abroad. Leadership that is bound by law inspires confidence in uncertain times. And in moments of instability, consistency in principle becomes a form of strength. It serves as a tether.

In my years in public service, I have seen how easily institutions bend when convenience prevails. I have also seen how they endure when principles hold. More often than not, the difference lies in decisions that seem small at the time but prove decisive in the long run. The temptation to defer, to wait for calmer waters, can be strong. Yet calmer waters rarely arrive on their own. They are shaped by deliberate action and adherence to rules that remain steady even when circumstances do not.

The lesson of Damocles is simple: Power is never secure. It is always conditional: held in trust, bound by law, and shadowed by consequence. The sword is always there, acknowledged or not.

The more important question is whether we still have the will to let it fall when it must.

Let the trial proceed swiftly, fairly and without fear. Because in the end, democracy is not defined by who holds power, but by whether power is held to account. To wait for a more convenient moment is to risk waiting indefinitely. As Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, “the time is always right to do what is right.”

Are the Supremes and the Senate in cahoots?

Puwede namang hindi na lang naki-alam ang Korte Suprema, lalo na’t they practically changed, and added to, the rules, in a hair-splitting kind of way, by unanimous vote yet, which has lost the Court a lot of credibility. What if they had stayed out of it instead, left it to the Senate to deal with the Articles of Impeachment, dismiss it with or without a hearing, and let the Senate thereafter be answerable, accountable, to the people who elected them.

We have no such recourse with regard to the Supremes, and that is so unfair. We’re expected to just take their word for it — null and void, ab initio — no matter what we think, kahit may pinag-aralan at nag-iisip at nakakaintindi rin naman kahit hindi tayo abogado.

The mindset is, the Supremes know best when it comes to the rule of law, and that it is best, too, for the country that we all bow to the the wisdom of “the gods of Padre Faura” because theirs is the final say, never mind if we’re not quite persuaded (more like blindsided) by the ponente’s looooong-winded arguments [97 pages of text and footnote], because to insist daw that the Senate ignore the Supremes is to be a “banana republic” kasi ang ibig sabihin, wala tayong “rule of law”.

Thank goodness that former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna have weighed in:

CJ PANGILINAN: … I would have favored – if I were still an incumbent – the issuance of a Status Quo Ante order requiring the parties to maintain the current situation. … As part of due process, I would have asked for Oral Argument before promulgating any decision. If the Court had patiently heard Oral Argument on less important problems like the recognition of foreign divorces and the PhilHealth petitions, why not on this monumental case? In the least, if only to accord respect to a coequal branch of the government, the HOR, I would have called for Oral Argument before making up my mind and casting my vote.

J. AZCUNA:  THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE THE ONE TO CRAFT THE RULES TO ENFORCE ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION. … the Supreme Court members are themselves impeachable officials. So they cannot be the ones to define the rules for their own possible impeachment. This would go against the very heart of due process— No one can be the judge in one’s own case. [CAPS Azcuna’s]

Beyond that and more, from the likes of Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and lawyer Christian Monsod, a framer of the ’87 Constitution  https://www.youtube.com/, my beef is with the timing. February 18 pa noong nag-file ang bigtime abogados ni VP Sara ng petition to nullify the Articles of Impeachment. What took the Court so long?

Check out SP Chiz‘s July 29 statement to the press re the July 25 null-and-void sound effects from the Supreme Court that I bothered to transcribe, for the record. He sounds like he’s feeling quite vindicated about redefining “forthwith” and allowing the “remand”. Totoo kaya ang chismis na linigawan niya at ng isang DDS senator ang Korte Suprema to intervene when, and in the way, they did? Perhaps to spare not just VP Sara but also the Senate from the inevitable intramurals? Or coincidence lang, synchronicity baga, na on the same wavelength siya at ang Supremes?

SP CHIZ: Personally, ang posisyon ko, bilang abogado, ay ito. Nagdesisyon ang Korte Suprema. Sang-ayon ka man doon o hindi, dapat ito’y sundin. Kung hindi, magkakaron tayo ng constitutional crisis at baka tingnan tayo ng mga karatıg-bansa natin at ibang tao na isang banana republic kung saan sinusunod lamang natin ‘yung mga gusto natin.

Bilang pananaw pa sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Lima sa labing-isang pinag-utos ng Korte Surpema na isumite ng Kamara ay kabilang sa order o kautusan ng Senate Impeachment mismo, kaugnay sa compliance ng Kamara sa one-year ban. Sabi nga ng isang kritiko ng Senado nung mga panahong ‘yon: Wala daw karapatan ang Senado utusan ang Kamara, na tanungin ang Kamara kaugnay ng one-year ban. Sabi ng kritikong ‘yon, desisyon daw ‘yon ng Korte Suprema. Ngayong nagdesisyon naman ang Korte Suprema, ang sinasabi ng parehong taong iyan ay: the Senate is the sole judge of impeachment cases, dapat ‘wag pansinin.

Ano ba yan. Talaga bang nagbabago kung anong tama at totoo ayon sa batas depende sa gusto natin? Hindi ba dapat, ano man ang gusto natin, dapat ang sundin natin ay ang batas at ang Saligang Batas. At ayon sa Konstitusyon, Korte Suprema lamang ang bukod tanging may kapangyarihan magbigay-buhay at mag-interpret ng ating Saligang Batas. May mga parte din ng desisyon na hindi ako sang-ayon, pero kung babasahin natin ng lubusan, kabilang yung mga separate opinions …

Nakasaad din sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema: hindi nagkaroon, mula’t-mula, ng jurisdiction ang Senado doon sa impeachment complaints dahil sa paglabag sa Bill of Rights, partikular, due process of law.

… kaugnay sa paglabag sa due process kinlaro din nila yon. Na kapag violation ng due process ang pinaguusapan, ay wala na tayong puwede i-review o ibalik pa dahil nawalan na ng jurisdiction mula sa simula ang anumang korte o husgado, ayon sa majority at unanimous decision. https://www.youtube.com/

Violation of due process nga ba?

J. AZCUNA: The Constitution provides that NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW (Art. III, The Bill of Rights). Someone being impeached does not stand to be deprived of life, nor of liberty, much less of property. So what is the Constitutional basis for insisting on applying due process rules IN ALL PHASES OF IMPEACHMENT?

None.

***

Is the Supreme Court facing a perfect storm? by Joel Ruiz Butuyan

Firestorm over impeachment authority Inquirer Editorial 

The Supreme Court betrayed the people by Tony Lopez

 

 

Second-guessing the Senate

What does it mean for the impeachment trial, now that more than a majority of senators are reportedly supporting Senate President Chiz Escudero in the 20th Senate?

As many as 16 senators have already signed a resolution expressing support for Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero to remain as Senate president in the 20th Congress, Senator JV Ejercito said Tuesday [July 8]. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/

It would seem that the 16 include the DDS senators.

Wednesday, [Senator Bato] Dela Rosa announced that the Duterte bloc, now known as Duter7, has pledged its support for Senate President Francis Escudero, who has been widely criticized for delaying the impeachment trial.

While he expressed uncertainty about the commitment of fellow Duter7 member Sen. Imee Marcos, Dela Rosa stated that the bloc is generally inclined to support Escudero’s continuation as Senate president.

Duter7 comprises Senators Dela Rosa, Marcos, Bong Go, Rodante Marcoleta, Robinhood Padilla, Camille Villar and Mark Villar. https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/07/10/

Samantala, Senator Tito Sotto‘s bid for the senate presidency is down to three supporters.

Senator Migz Zubiri said on Monday, July 7, [that he] is supporting Sotto’s bid, though he admitted they currently lack the numbers. He said the so-called “Veterans Bloc”— composed of himself, Sotto, and senators Loren Legarda and Ping Lacson — is also backing Sotto. https://www.rappler.com/

16 for Chiz and 4 for Sotto makes 20. Which leaves Senators Risa Hontiveros, Bam Aquino, and Kiko Pangilinan.

Senators Bam Aquino and Francis Pangilinan are likely to join the Senate majority in the 20th Congress, with expectations that they will chair the committees on education and on agriculture, respectively, Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said yesterday.  https://www.philstar.com/

Senator Migz Zubiri said on Monday, July 7, that opposition Senator Risa Hontiveros would be “most welcome” to join the Senate minority bloc of the 20th Congress if her allies, Senators Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan, ultimately decide to join the majority. https://www.rappler.com/

Sa tingin nila, nag-iisa na si Senator Risa.

MIGZ. I really feel sorry for Senator Risa. You know, she was always campaigning for her candidates. Then she said she would form her own independent bloc, but now she’s all alone. That’s what I heard, she’s now all alone. I cannot confirm or deny this. https://www.rappler.com/

So far neither Bam nor Kiko has confirmed or denied any of it, which tends to give credence to reports na pinagiisipan pa nila. Of course, the pinklawan Akbayan punditz are very upset. Is this any way to treat the lady, abandoning her, after she had campaigned for them, begged voters to vote for them, para may kasama, kakampi, siya sa senado?

Hmmm. I’m not sure the surprise spectacular showing of Bam and Kiko — #2 and #5 — was thanks mainly to Risa’s Akbayan pull. There was the INC, too, for Bam, and the Liberal Party for KiBam, and let’s not forget the Kiko-Shawie show-up at a Palace event celebrating Philippine cinema. I mean, you know, huwag naman angkinin sina Bam at Kiko.

Besides, I’m not (yet) convinced that a supermajority for Chiz as SP means a supermajority for dismissal of the impeachment complaint. I wouldn’t put it past Chiz to dangle committee chairmanships in exchange for the SP post but without compromising the impeachment.

Dela Rosa, who failed to get the impeachment case dismissed during the 19th Congress, said he plans to bring up the question of jurisdiction in the plenary after the 20th Congress opens on July 28. https://www.manilatimes.net/

I imagine that Chiz will allow Bato to try again, and that, after some debate, the question will  be decided by a majority vote based, I pray, not on fears of this or that consequence but, purely on the Senate’s constitutional mandate to hold certain very powerful public officials to the highest standards of accountability and integrity.

And yes, kahit matuloy ang trial, senators could block the opening of the Dutertes’ bank accounts, kung meron nga, but that’s par for the course. Whichever way it goes, much will be revealed, and we will all be the better (informed) for it.

As for Senator Risa, in her place I wouldn’t mind being the lone wolf, not if | when I have friends in the majority.

19th Senate — “extreme cowardice” or “misplaced mercy”?

YEN MAKABENTA: With its refusal to do its constitutional duty to try Vice President Sara Dutere on an impeachment complaint filed against her by the House of Representatives, the Senate and its leadership have shown extreme cowardice in refusing to convene as an impeachment court and try the case.

This is institutional cowardice that should be rewarded accordingly. The nation should now study how it can sensibly fairly respond to this defiance of a constitutional mandate.

I don’t always agree with Makabenta and I’m not sure a constitutional amendment is the answer just because that would take, like, forever, but I have long wondered if the 18 senators who voted to remand the Articles of Impeachment are really just super wary, even scared, of displeasing the Dutertes who, according to the ICC Prosecution, still wield considerable influence especially in Davao.

Prosecution’s response to ‘Urgent Request for Interim Release’

16. In his capacity as the former President of the Philippines, Mr Duterte held the highest political office in the country for a period of six years. As a result of this position, Mr Duterte has maintained a network of support from powerful individuals within the Philippines. Further, many of Mr Duterte’s associates—including his family members—remain in positions of power with access to powerful domestic networks. This includes his daughter, Sara Duterte, who is Vice President of the Philippines and has made her position clear that she views her father’s detention at the Court as illegitimate. Further, in his filing before the Philippines Supreme Court, Mr Duterte’s counsel highlighted his current strong influence over the police in his home town of Davao – the same police department that the Prosecution alleges was involved in murders at his direction during the mayoral period.

23. Further, if released, Mr Duterte would have greater access to his associates and family who remain in positions of power with access to networks and personnel to carry out witness interference. As noted above, his daughter, Sara Duterte, is Vice President of the Philippines and a reserve colonel in the Army with strong links to the police and military. In these positions, she wields power and influence over governmental structures, as well as over her father’s former allies and supporters. Mr Duterte’s son, Sebastian Duterte, was the Mayor of Davao City. Following Mr Duterte’s election as Mayor, he now serves as Vice Mayor of Davao City. Under the relevant legislation, as Vice-Mayor, he performs the duties of the Mayor in the event of the absence of the Mayor and has the same powers and duties as the Mayor. Sebastian Duterte therefore maintains operational control under relevant domestic legislation for all police officers in Davao City.

And then again, could it also be a case of “misplaced mercy”, as in, nakakaáwà naman kasi sila, nakakulong na nga ang matanda, ii-impeach pa ang anak? Ito ang sumagi sa isip ko nang sabihin ni SP Chiz a few days ago that dismissal by a simple majority is still a possibility (or something like that) at ng isang senador, si  Alan “Remand” Peter yata yon, that the Supremes would then have to rule on the matter and if they take too long, well, then, there’s always next year. Ganoon.

Ang balita naman ni Ronald Llamas, Akbayan propagandist-cum-politicalheckler, on Chris Tan‘s Filipino.com chikahan kahapon, nagtawág daw si SP Chiz ng meeting ng mga senador bukas, a Sunday, “the day before June 30 kung saan hindi na sila 19th congress, biglang sinet.” Anong layunin, indeed. To dismiss the case?

Nagtataka lang ako na walang ibang media na nagbabalita ng miting na iyan. Did I hear wrong? If not, saan kaya napulot ni Llamas ang balita? Sinong nagbulong sa kanya? Credible ba? Imbitado ba lahat ng senador? Aling mga senador? 19th Senate ba, o 20th Senate na? Why is no one asking? Sa totoo lang.