Category: senate

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I Dare Say, Now More Than Ever In Our History, Politicians Are Suspects!
People have lost trust in government and government officials.
Honestly, who can blame them?
So here’s a thought: WHAT IF we all just resign and allow a Snap Election.
From The President, Vice President, Senate, and Congress. With One Important Addition – No Incumbent From The Above Can Run For 1 Election Cycle.

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano‘s call for a snap election, while unconstitutional and politically fraught, is quite noteworthy in that he “honestly” concedes that they all deserve our distrust — an indirect implicit tacit admission of Guilt.

Of course walang nag-second the motion sa mga pinaparinggan niyang opisyales. Because why nga naman should they resign, lalo na yung mga newly-elected, and what about the truly innocent (if when where) any?

As for the guilty, why nga naman would they admit Guilt, when the Law says “innocent until proven guilty”, and experts as they apparently are at corruption, they were are uber careful not to leave behind any signatures or footprints, literal or digital, that would tie them to the crime in any way. No receipts signed, no photos/video showing them personally in the act of receiving bags and bags of cash, because, you know, they have trusted staff for that, who know exactly what to do, as does everyone positioned and greased along the bureaucratic hierarchy of corruption, all the way up to the “proponent” | sponsor | “funder” ng project who-must-not-be-named, who secretly gets anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of those funds, who is are the Most Guilty for not caring about the substandard and the ghost, which means not caring about the well-being of the people they’re supposed to be serving, whose taxes and loans they steal from in the millions, billions, trillions of pesos. Cunning and unscrupulous and greedy, yes. But innocent? In what world?

Believe it or not, the legal maxim “innocent until proven guilty” is based on the long-impugned premise that humans are inherently good, therefore one accused of wrongdoing is more likely innocent and less likely guilty, and so it is the burden of the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused. Pero hindi ba kabaligtaran iyan ng Catholic premise of “original sin” na ating kinagisnan kinlakhan pinaniniwalaan, the basic premise being that humans are inherently evil, as demonstrated by Adam and Eve when they ate of the “forbidden fruit”, which is why mayroong Baptism, Confession, and Communion, even Extreme Unction, ang simbahan as cleansing sacraments?

Whether humans are born good or evil has been debated by philosophers for centuries. Aristotle argued that morality is learned, and that we’re born as “amoral creatures” while Sigmund Freud considered new-borns a moral blank slate. Anyone who has read “Lord of the Flies” will expect children to be fully-fledged sociopaths just waiting to be freed from their adult-imposed shackles to (spoiler alert) start a cult and brutally attempt to kill each other.

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/

In this light, and given the incontrovertible Evidence : of miserable killer floods that we are all witness to, and victims of, the ruling elite of senators and congressmen so far named cannot blame us for judging them as Hobbes would, i.e., Guilty Until Proven Innocent,

Thanks to Senator Ping Lacson‘s investigations and Blue Ribbon Committee hearings, the systemic corruption in government ay pinatunayan ng isang Usec at dalawang engineer ng DPWH at ng mag-asawang contractor — corruption that goes all the way up to the proponent senators and congress reps, na halos mangalahati ang kabig na kickback o komisyon sa bawat proyekto, kung kaya’t kinakapos ang pondo, kung kaya’t mumurahin at kulang-kulang ang materyales na ginagamit, at di matibay o maayos ang disenyo, kaya’t lalo pang grumabe ang problema: konting ulan, lubog agad!

These are eye-opening consciousness-raising times when the Law is not held in high esteem, not when there are ways around it for the rich and powerful in Congress and everywhere else in government. These are mind-boggling times, an occasion to change mindset, from innocent-until-proven-guilty to Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

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.

I’m not saying the buck stops with the Senate Prez and the Speaker, but I’m giving whistleblower PBBM the benefit of the doubt vis a vis flood-control corruption. Besides, he has immunity from suit while he is president. But here’s hoping he submits to the people’s clamor that some of the ICI hearings be livestreamed.

PROF. ANTONIO CONTRERAS: The ICI must avoid ,,, extremes: the opacity that breeds suspicion and the spectacle that breeds distortion. A hybrid model offers the best path forward. Under this approach, the committee would conduct closed-door technical sessions to examine sensitive documents, hear confidential testimonies, and cross-check data free from external pressure. These sessions would prioritize accuracy, witness protection, and legal integrity. Once the committee has verified facts and established findings, it should then hold public hearings focused on questioning top officials, presenting major evidence, and explaining conclusions in plain language. These open sessions would allow the public to witness justice in action without jeopardizing the investigation’s integrity. https://www.manilatimes.net/

Above all, we want to see heads roll.

JAKE MADERAZO: The scandal does not end with DPWH officials and contractors. The accusations leveled by  (Roberto) Bernardo, (Henry) Alcantara and (Brice) Hernandez against Senators Joel Villanueva, Jinggoy Estrada, Chiz Escudero, former House Appropriations Chair Zaldy Co and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez must be held to the same standard.

The Filipino people are tired of watching the powerful walk free after orchestrating grand heists against the nation. The law must be enforced without fear or favor. There can be no bail, no backdoor deals, no escapes through technicalities. Those implicated—whether DPWH officials, bagmen, contractors, or lawmakers—must be prosecuted to the fullest extent and  jailed during the trial without bail. https://opinion.inquirer.net/

Guilty until proven innocent! Whistleblowers welcome!

Suddenly in September, telltale times

It was surprisingly swabe and civilized, the turn-over by Chiz Escudero, and the take-over by Tito Sotto, of the senate presidency. After all, they belong to the same political party, i.e., the National People’s Coalition (NPC) founded in ’92 by the late Danding Cojuangco (of which Alice Guo was briefly a member not too long ago). May pinagsamahan, ika nga.

Quite a relief to have been spared histrionics from the Duterte bloc upon their demotion to minority status. By the time they found out, fait accompli na. Twould seem they got too big for their britches, especially after the archiving of the impeachment, thought the bloc too fearsome and formidable, and DDS vloggers too vigilant and savvy, to be outfoxed, outwitted, or outmaneuvered, much less caught off guard.

But that’s exactly what happened Monday as DDS senators and vloggers were reveling in, and cheering on, DDS Senator Rodante Marcoleta‘s  Blue Ribbon hearing that had contractor Curlee Discaya naming Speaker Martin Romualdez and Rep. Zaldy Co among those mired in flood control anomalies.

Tit for tat. Of course the House struck back the very next day: at the infrastructure committee hearing, former DPWH district engineer Brice Hernandez name-dropped demoted Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Joel Villanueva (na-double whammy rin sila) regarding 30% commissions from Bulacan’s flood control projects. Which of course the two senators vehemently denied forthwith on the Senate floor just before Ping Lacson‘s privilege speech that same afternoon which turned out disappointing for having nothing to say to, or of, the two senators so named.

***
Are the hearings a waste of time because the Senate and the House are not likely to investigate any of their own members no matter if implicated by the testimonies of witnesses under oath? The Senate has no prosecutorial powers daw kasi, it’s mostly in aid of legislation, but also, said Minority Leader Alan Cayetano, it’s also to “ferret the truth” such as in the ZTE, fertilizer scam, and Pharmally investigations. Umm. Noong ZTE it was whistleblower Jun Lozada who went to jail; sa fertilizer scam, the plunder case vs. Bolante was dismissed anyway; yung sa Pharmally, may nakulong ba o nabawing pera?

***
Meanwhile everyone’s on tenterhooks, anxious about when the next rains and floods will hit (konting ulan, baha) and angry irate furious about the failure of overpriced flood control projects, and how government has failed us big time, and how systemic and systematic the corruption in both the executive and legislative branches, which actually only confirms our long-held suspicions, except that we had no proof, they were all always covering up for each other, until ibinulgar mismo ni PBBM dahil sobra na, sabay pangako that heads will roll, iwas pusoy kumbaga, kaysa ma-Indonesia o ma-Nepal.

Because it’s rally season in the run-up to the anniversary of Martial Law, PBBM’s AFP and PNP must be on red alert, and this time the agitation is aggravated by a restive and blusterous DDS camp that’s looking for a rally to join that’s anti-corruption and anti-Marcos but NOT anti-Duterte. Together they hope to gather big enough numbers to oust PBBM and install VP Sara, which could increase chances of bringing Digong home. They got the ICC to postpone the Sept 23 confirmation of charges hearing, but only for a limited time while their experts determine if it’s true what Kaufman says, that Digong, 80, is “not fit to stand trial as a result of cognitive impairment in multiple domains.” Tipong limot-limot na daw, unable to recall events, places, and people, even family. But does it matter? What’s the law? What’s the history?

***
And meanwhile there’s talk of another Senate coup brewing, with Cayetano poised to take over. The Duterte bloc of 9 only needs 4 votes to unseat Sotto. Sino kaya sa majority ang liniligawan, ginagapang, na magbalik-loob? The Villars, I imagine, and maybe the other Cayetano, and the other Ejercito? But a majority of 13 would be even more manipis than Sotto’s current 15.

“Very devious!” Sotto tweeted Sunday. “Wala pang hearing ang Blue Ribbon ni Ping Lacson, gusto ng ilan magpalitan agad. What are they so afraid of?”

Afraid of being exposed, maybe? Because what if Lacson’s Blue Ribbon committee has the dope pala on the rumored billion bucks worth of Discaya flood control projects from 2022-2024 in Taguig? Cayetano country, no less.

***

Activism, impeachment, dynasty

There is judicial activism when a court undertakes any of the following: a court invalidates the constitutional action of another branch (e.g., legislature, executive); a court fails to adhere to a precedent; a court engages in judicial policymaking; a court departs from accepted interpretive methodology; or when a court engages in result-oriented judging (Kmiec, 2004). In judicial restraint, judges limit their interpretation to the text of the law; whereas in an activist court, members delve into broader societal issues and make themselves architects of legal and social change. Courts as Policymakers: Untangling Judicial Activism in the Philippines by Alicor Panao 22 March 2024 up.edu.ph

To my mind, “activism” is always associated with social-political movements seeking to improve the status quo and make life better for our marginalized majority, i.e., social justice kumbaga. But as it turns out, the Supremes’ kind of “judicial activism” is differently minded, as shown by the Supreme Court’s decision on VP Sara’s impeachment. Parang mas pinahalagahan ng Korte ang kapakanan at kahilingan ng VP na ipa-walang-bisa ang  Articles of Impeachment kaysa ang kapakanan at kahilingan ng taongbayan (represented by the Lower House) na ituloy ang trial (sa Upper House) kung saan Duterte can defend herself and even possibly clear her name. https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/

Nakakagulat ba itong desisyon ng Supremes? Nakakadismaya pero hindi nakakagulat. Siyempre sumagi sa isip ko ang 1973 decision na nagpa-walang-bahala sa pagkaka-“ratify”-kuno ng Martial Law Constitution ni Marcos via raise-your-hands “Citizens Assemblies” — wala na daw magagawa, in effect na daw kasi, or something like that. And then there was Gloria Arroyo’s midnight appointment of CJ Renato Corona in May 2010 even it was against the law. And what about the burial of Marcos Sr. sa Libingan ng mga Bayani noong November 2016, na kahit ang mga Marcos ay tila nahiyâ — behind closed gates and by-invitation-only ang naganap na seremonyas.

BUT HERE’S A SILVER LINING

Check out this convo of a couple of hopeful young thinkers: rappler‘s senior legal reporter and a UP law prof: https://www.youtube.com/

LIAN BUAN: Can SC be judicial activists, too, for the pending anti-dynasty case?

JOHN MOLO:  If we can create guidelines for impeachment, which is the sole prerogative of both Houses of Congress, I’m pretty certain we can finally order Congress to finally pass a law that’s 40 years delayed as required by the Constitution. That’s the silver lining perhaps here .. Kung ito, hindi lang nag-act … hindi gumalaw yung sec-gen … is already grave abuse of discretion … e mas lalo pa kaya the pending political dynasty issue … na required legislation, na 40 years in-ignore. … Kinda gives me more confidence that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Quite a long dark tunnel it’s been, with the Supremes dismissing petitions (since 2013) to compel Congress to enact an anti-dynasty law because daw Congress is a co-equal branch of government … to do so would be to “violate the principle of separation of powers among the three branches of government.” Still pending is the last one filed March 31 2025 by the 1Sambayan Coalition of former justices, retired military officials, priests, academics, and lawyers, calling it a “desperate attempt to give life to the 1987 Constitution” and a “relief from the chokehold political dynasties have placed on this nation.” https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/

And guess who was quick to anticipate the Supremes, forthwith, at the time:

The Supreme Court cannot compel Congress to enact a law banning political dynasties, Senate President Francis Escudero said, citing constitutional limitations.

His remarks come in response to a petition filed by 1Sambayan and other civic groups urging the SC to mandate Congress to fulfill its constitutional obligation under Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution.

“The Supreme Court has said that Congress cannot be forced by a mandamus from the court to pass a law. The legislative process is a political question,” Escudero said at a press briefing on April 3.

I don’t get it (because I’m not a lawyer?).  The Supremes can’t order them around on the matter of political dynasties, sabi niya noon, pero ngayon, on the matter of impeachment, puwedeng puwede?

“The Supreme Court’s ruling is final and immediately executory,” Escudero said. “Whether we like the Supreme Court’s decision or not, we might be called a banana republic (if we do not follow it).”  https://www.manilatimes.net/

And it doesn’t seem to matter na ayon sa OCTA Research, based on a July 12-17 survey:

RANJIT RYE:  A significant number of Filipinos, 8 of 10, feel that the Vice President is innocent and want the impeachment trial to continue. A lot of people don’t see the impeachment just as pananagutan or accountability. A lot of people think of it as due process, a chance for the VP to clear her name.  Storycon 31 July https://www.youtube.com/

Senator Tito Sotto says he will object vociferously if when the Duterte bloc rushes to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment on August 6 without waiting for the Supremes to rule on the Motions for Reconsideration because daw the Supremes just MIGHT hear oral arguments and even reverse their ruling. “We will object!’ Sotto papalag kung may mag-mosyon i-dismiss ang impeachment ni VP Sara
https://www.youtube.com/

But then again, what if the Supremes stick to their guns? Next year na lang uli? But given all those new rules? Asa pa!

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