31/07/2025
RESPECT UNANIMOUS DECISION OF SUPREME COURT REGARDING THE IMPEACHMENT OF VP SARA DUTERTE BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME (February 6, 2026)
Follow the Unanimous Decision made by the Final Arbiter SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES be a FINAL and EXECUTORY. The SC is the sole authority to determine either the subject is constitutional or unconstitutional. Let us respect the high court of the land or else constitutional crisis may undertake.
This is a very simple way of looking at what happened and the root of the problem.
There are 2 modes of initiating impeachment. First, through an impeachment complaint filed by a member of the House or by a citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by a member of the House, and second, by a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House.
The first, second and third impeachment complaints were filed under the first mode. So under the Francisco ruling, they should have been included in the Order of Business in 10 sessions days and thereafter referred to the Committee on Justice in 3 session days. If this was done with the first complaint, the impeachment proceeding would have been initiated by then and the one-year bar would have started. Take note that this first mode is what is available to us, ordinary citizens, to go after an impeachable official.
The House and its leadership were aware of the constitutional one-year bar rule and the Francisco ruling which has been incorporated in the House Rules on Impeachment. But they did not want the first 3 impeachment complaints to proceed so the Secretary General sat on them until the last session day. Why? They wanted the fourth impeachment complaint of more than 1/3 of the members of the House so that there will no longer be a hearing and it can be transmitted to the Senate right away. This is the second mode.
The House could not afford a hearing for the 19th Congress was about to adjourn or be terminated. There was no time for a hearing.
So, in effect, the House circumvented the one-year bar rule and the Francisco ruling by sitting on the first 3 impeachment complaints filed by citizens. Had it proceeded right away with the first impeachment complaint, perhaps, it would have been done with a hearing and there would have been no problem.
To me, what took place was what appears to be a grand conspiracy to circumvent the constitutional one-year bar rule and the Francisco ruling. So, the Supreme Court, correctly ruled that there was grave abuse of discretion and denial of the right to due process of the respondent. Thus, faced with these new set of facts, the Supreme Court came out with an expanded interpretation of the one-year bar rule. Further, so that this grave abuse of discretion will not be repeated, it came out with requirements so that the due process principles will be observed on the premise that while the impeachment process is sui generis, the Bill of Rights applies to the entire process.
To those who disagree, better luck next time—mark your calendars for February 6, 2026.
Nevertheless, is it not the Supreme Court's duty and moral obligation?
Their insights and perspectives (of the Supreme Court) and everyday individuals, like garbage collectors for one, can often be far more perceptive than those of you, might imagine.
Perhaps, with the Supreme Court's 13-0-2 decisions, they certainly grasp the differences between a MILLION (125 million of Confidential Funds of the OVP) and a BILLION (a staggering 4.5 billion of Confidential Funds of the OP) much better than you think.
Who is truly squandering resources?
