Category: impeachment

The Senate shift

Hindi naman ako nagulat, pero nadismaya nang lubusan, when on the very day that the Lower House approved overwhelmingly (257 of 318 ) the Articles of Impeachment vs. the VP ay saka naman nagkudeta sa Senado — biglang naging majority of 13 ang dating minority DDS bloc of 9 (ImeeMarcos, ChizEscudero, JoelVillanueva, BongGo, Bato, RobinPadilla, RodanteMarcoleta, JinggoyEstrada, AlanPeterCayetano).

Hindi lang napasipot napaapir ng Cayetano siblings (it would seem) si Bato from hiding, napabaliktad rin  ang apat na dati’y nasa Sotto majority: ang magkapatid na Villar, ang Pia na kapatid ni APC of course, and the political butterfly Legarda-cum-Leviste, mother of the kulangkulang solarboy. Dynasties all, with axes to grind, legal cases pending, staking their political futures on a Duterte comeback, kapit sa patalim.

I hope Ronald Llamas is right, that it’s a manipis, even a shaky, majority that could shift yet again, sana soon.

Sana rin sumuko na si Bato, stop giving the Senate an excuse to delay the trial. Then we will see what the Cayetanos are up to, really. They’ll be calling the shots, these two lawyers, and I imagine there’ll be a lot of legal hair-splitting over objections already raised by Sara mimso, that the charges lacked proof, the hearings were a fishing expedition, and the complainants were politically motivated.

I hope they don’t do a Makoy circa 1985. Back in the first Sandiganbayan trial of Ver et al in the Ninoy assassination case, Marcos managed to disallow all the evidence unearthed by the Agrava Fact-Finding Board that found Ver et al indictable, eventually acquitting all the accused in November ’85. We know what happened not too long after that.

Kung maniniwala tayo sa surveys taken at the height of the Justice Committee’s hearings, it would seem that the madlang pipol have heard enough allegations, and now they want to hear from the VP, there’s just no getting away from it. Never mind what Cayetano’s Bible says. I’m sure we can find another saying the exact opposite. #Forthwith

April 22 synchronicities

Sitting through most of the Justice Committee hearing wasn’t a waste of time, mabuti na lang. To my mind, probable cause was established vis a vis unexplained wealth in the impeachment case of VP Sara. “Smoking gun,” sabi ni Rep Chel Diokno. Salamat kay Sonny Trillanes. And kudos to committee chair Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro sa maingat ngunit matalim na pagtitimon. Impressive, Ma’am!

Meanwhile in The Hague, the ICC denied again the jurisdiction appeal of Duterte‘s counsel. The very next day, April 23, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber finally confirmed all charges against Duterte and committed him to trial before a Trial Chamber. Ka-abang-abang. At nakakapagpaisip. How did Digong receive kaya the news. Surely he didn’t see his life winding down on this very sad note. I suppose he thought he could get away with the killings and stealings, no one would ever dare take him to court. But he trusted Imee, made Marcos 1.0 a hero, then made Marcos 2.0 the president. What if he hadn’t.

Umeksena rin ang Supremes. Without necessarily giving due course to the petition, the Court ordered BBM and his executive secretary Ralph Recto to respond in 10 days to former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez‘s plea that the president be made to submit to health exams, including a hair follicle test. Hindi ko gets. Ang naaalala ko ay nuong panahon ng boss ni Alvarez when we’d see then President Rodrigo Duterte stumbling around, talking weird, looking half-asleep, barely paying attention, like he was high or stoned on Fentanyl or other, remember? He’d disappear sporadically, too, sometimes for a week or two, and we wondered who was running the country, and we’d ask for his medical records, and always, Duterte refused. A petition to the Supreme Court by Atty. Dino de Leon in April 2020 was simply junked by the Supremes a month later, hindi na inabala si Digong with an order to respond within 10 days. Double standard much, Your Honors?  Read “Panelo: No need for medical bulletin on President” 

Samantala sa social media, nambulaga in video si former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, whom we haven’t heard from since he resigned as speaker in the wake of the flood-control corruption scandal. Obviously na-upset dahil hindi siya pinayagan ng Ombudsman na magpuntang Singapore for a medical procedure — baka daw kasi hindi na siya bumalik a la Zaldy Co. “Fuming mad” si Romualdez, sabi ni Tony Lopez ng BizAsia. Angry enough to fight back and name Co and Chiz Escudero as the real masterminds daw, in cooperation with the executive branch. Hmm. Who next? Chiz maybe? I hear he’s threatening to name names too. Laglagan na ba, ang saya.

But the best April 22 event was Naga Mayor Leni Robredo reiterating that she is not running for president in 2028. Hindi nga naman tayo nakikinig. Tigilan na natin siya. She’s done her part. She didn’t want to run either in 2022 pero na-pressure siya into saying yes dahil VP siya noon. Pero ngayon, sa Naga na ang eksena niya, and she’s doing good there, let’s be happy for Naga!  So who might she endorse? Clearly she would be choosing among these three: Risa Hontiveros, Kiko Pangilinan, and Bam Aquino. Here’s hoping she eventually zooms in on Risa as the best choice for nation.

KATRINA S.S. [More than Bam or Kiko] Hontiveros has been at the forefront of urgent and critical investigations in the Senate, from the illegal POGO hubs to the West Philippine Sea; has been fighting with all of us for the divorce and SOGIE bills; has been an important voice on national issues since 2016, and even more so since 2022.

Hontiveros is, in fact, a level-up to Leni. The kind that will not dial back on her pro-divorce stance (as Leni did) when faced with the Catholic Church. The kind that will not suddenly compromise on her stance for equal rights and protection for LGBTQIA+ in the face of conservative criticism. The kind that can and will and has proven able to speak about democratic rights and systemic change in a language that we all understand, and in ways that are doable and imaginable and possible. https://katrinasantiago.com/

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