Duterte wil één van zijn belangrijkste politieke tegenstanders achter de tralies

[Pinocchio]

Alles is vastgelegt in de constitutie maar wordt aan de kant geveegt door ''benoemde door een president'' personen welke zich niet mogen bemoeien met een impeachment.

Op 25 juli 2025 heeft de Supreme Court (SC) van de Filippijnen beslist dat de impeachment van VP Sara Duterte uitgesproken door het Congres ongrondwettelijk is.

In een beschikking van meer dan 900 paginas werd duidelijk gemaakt dat de volksvertegenwoordigers met hun 2 impeachment procedures (december 2024 en februari 2025) tegen de Viceprecident hier duidelijk de grondwet overtraden door 1 van deze afzettingsprocedures naar de Senaat te sturen

Heel wat politici vinden dat de SC niet het recht heeft zich in een impeachment procedure te mengen.

Nu heeft  The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) met 48.000 advocaat leden (allemaal benoemd door Duterte?) zich als 1 blok achter de beslissing van SC geschaard

 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) threw its full weight behind the Supreme Court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, calling it a defining moment for the rule of law and a stern reminder that no public office is beyond accountability.

https://tribune.net.ph/2025/08/02/ibp-backs-sc-ruling-on-sara-impeach-case

[folkertjong]

Omdat Chiz Escudero, Duterte vriendje en speaker of the house, het niet behandelde met wat in de wet staat als direct (Forthwith) is het dusd 2x binnen een jaar gestuurd en nu onconstitutional. Dus nogmaals er is geen recht hier, ze doen maar wat. Als je voor je kind met honger een broodje steelt ben je de volgende  ochtend in de provincial jail en kun je 50 jaar wachten op een pro deo advocaat, steel je billioenen dan kom je nooit in de gevangenis.

[folkertjong]

From a legal pundit on MR re SC decision the IC was un constitutional:
In this MR, like any MR on cases before the court, the complainant or petitioners should present hard evidence to refute the basis for the SC decision . It must be new and not rehash of arguments presented so Justices can reconsider its decision . Danger is SC can make a decision calling their earlier decision as final and executory with no more MR. The law allows at least 2 MRs that can be filed unless the SC makes decision with finality.  If the SC still fails to give weight to the hard evidence which refutes their rationale for calling IC unconstitutional, then the MR is doomed.  There won't be any trial because present Senate body has already made a decision not to hold trial based on SC decision.
The other scenario that can happen if the MR is trashed, the HOR can now file impeachment against all 15 justices. There is no prohibition as to the number of justices who can be impeached. The grounds for this impeachment are culpable violation of the constitution and betrayal of public trust. Just anyone of this is enough to impeach the justices.
The justices may be called by the HOR to explain their side as part of due process . Failure to attend hearings by the HOR means the justices are waiving their rights to be heard .
After securing the necessary votes (2/3) from the HOR, the HOR can submit the articles or impeachment to the Senate to conduct trial of the Justices.
The impeached justices cannot run to themselves to declare the HOR impeachment against them is unconstitutional.
This will make the justices paralyzed as they face possible removal from the SC .
Since this is the first time all the justices will be impeached, this can go on trial .
Meanwhile, the HOR can wait next year to refile impeachment against the VP.
Nobody can call this a constitutional crisis as the justices themselves are the subject of impeachment. Remember, justices are all impeacheable officials of the govt .
When justices are impeached, the incumbent president can nominate new justices to fill the vacancies temporarily. The acting justices have to be confirmed by the Commision on Appointment composed of members of the HOR and senate 
I am checking this opinion by this political guru with lawyers familiar with constitutional cases and impeachement to validate the above.
Agree or not, if the justices are impeached by the HOR, who can challenge before the SC that the HOR act is again unconstitutional .
Let the HOR try this scenario to prove no one is above the law when it comes to impeachment process.
By hindsgiht and foresight, SC justices can and should reverse their decision to avoid being removed from the SC.
If this happens, this  will go down in history and jurisprudence as  nobody will be around to render judgement on cases pending with the justices.
My personal view is the Justices should have been more circumspect about what they did  and to correct the injustice, they should revoke  their earlier  judgment calling the IC filed by the HOR as unconstitutional to avoid losing their seats and humiliation from the public.
https://www.facebook.com/franklin.ysaac/posts/pfbid0mbhhfAPnqDhDh2Ud8Ui4xP1AhJncPFgs9FRYtP6QdfahSC8oVevRWke5may3AwZDl

[folkertjong]

En zo kunnen we wel blijven doorgaan. Ik herhaal, er is geen justice in de Filipijnen voor de ''hogere'' personen.

Wat zeker is is dat Sara giga bedragen heeft gesjoemelt (Net zoals de meeste andere politicy)  terwijl ze een ambtenaar is.

SC impeachment rules gave itself undue power'

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) "gifted itself" undue power when it imposed new rules for the initiation of impeachment proceedings in declaring as unconstitutional the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, the Philippine Constitution Association Foundation Inc. (PhilConSa) has observed.

In a statement signed by PhilConSa chairperson and former chief justice Reynato Puno, the group expressed grave concern over the imposition of seven new rules in impeachment proceedings, set by the SC for compliance by the House of Representatives.

The statement issued over the weekend said the new rules gave the SC powers "that can deprive the House of its exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment," thereby violating Article XI (3) of the Constitution.

It noted that the requirement that the draft Articles of Impeachment should be accompanied by sufficient evidence and there should be reasonable time wherein members of the House could decide whether or not to endorse the complaint could be used by the impeached official to raise the matter to the SC.
enz.

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/08/04/2463017/sc-impeachment-rules-gave-itself-undue-power

[Pinocchio]

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) "gifted itself" undue power when it imposed new rules for the initiation of impeachment proceedings in declaring as unconstitutional the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, the Philippine Constitution Association Foundation Inc. (PhilConSa) has observed.

Wat een toeval...

First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos joins Philippine Constitution Association

https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/2024/9/26/first-lady-liza-araneta-marcos-joins-philippine-constitution-association-1840

[folkertjong]

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) "gifted itself" undue power when it imposed new rules for the initiation of impeachment proceedings in declaring as unconstitutional the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, the Philippine Constitution Association Foundation Inc. (PhilConSa) has observed.

Wat een toeval...

First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos joins Philippine Constitution Association

https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/2024/9/26/first-lady-liza-araneta-marcos-joins-philippine-constitution-association-1840

Marcos wil geen impeachment van Sara want dan gaat Sara de vuile was over de laatste verkiezingen buiten hangen.

[folkertjong]

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) "gifted itself" undue power when it imposed new rules for the initiation of impeachment proceedings in declaring as unconstitutional the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, the Philippine Constitution Association Foundation Inc. (PhilConSa) has observed.

Wat een toeval...

First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos joins Philippine Constitution Association

https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/2024/9/26/first-lady-liza-araneta-marcos-joins-philippine-constitution-association-1840

Marcos wil geen impeachment van Sara want dan gaat Sara de vuile was over de laatste verkiezingen buiten hangen.

Deze professoren etc zijn dus weer precies tegenovergesteld van die andere groep, en zo gaat het maar door.

 https://polisci.upd.edu.ph/statement-of-faculty-members-of-the-up-department-of-political-science-on-the-impeachment-trial-of-vice-president-sara-z-duterte/

[folkertjong]

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) threw its full weight behind the Supreme Court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, calling it a defining moment for the rule of law and a stern reminder that no public office is beyond accountability.

De quote is alleen maar om aan te geven dat de supreme court als body gelijkwaardig is aan de senaat en huis van afgevaardigden.



https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=767731419039870


https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/954687/philconsa-urges-sc-to-revisit-facts-questions-new-rules-in-vp-sara-impeachment-ruling/story/

[Pinocchio]

De Senaat heeft beslist om de impeachment procedure tegen VP Sara Duterte verticaal te klasseren.
Aangezien enkel de Senaat een afzettingsprocedure kan voeren betekend dit het einde van een eindeloze soap die van bij het begin een verloren zaak was.

https://www.rappler.com/philippines/senate-vote-archive-sara-duterte-impeachment-august-6-2025/

[Pinocchio]

Het ICC zal op 28 november bekendmaken of Rodrigo Duterte voorlopig kan vrijkomen in afwachting van zijn proces.
Dit is (toevallig?) de dag van Black Friday de wereldwijde koopjesdag en de dag voordat Amerikanen Thanksgiving vieren met kalkoen en veenbessentaart.

https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/11/22/news/national/icc-decision-on-duterte-bid-for-interim-release-set-for-nov-28/2228954