In its 61-page motion, the House, thru the OSG, presents a lucid, clearly articulated, and respectful response to the SC decision. It clarifies the facts and reiterates the Constitutional purpose of impeachment: upholding accountability. I truly hope it is considered.

I joined my UP Law Faculty colleagues in this statement expressing serious concerns about the SC ruling on the Impeachment of VP Sara Duterte, and encouraging full public debate on the issue.

Ang tawag dyan: Laglag.

Hindi ba ang sagot, kung paninira lang talaga lahat ito, ay "Wala itong katotohanan. Tingnan natin mismo ang GAA, wala ang mga sinasabing insertions na ito." . Pero bakit ang dami pang ibang kwento? Kesyo "demolition job," kesyo sino daw ang source. Medyo defensive lang, no?.

First, the SC is perfectly capable of defending itself from any supposed "disrespect." No need for anyone else to jump in and "defend" it. Second, what will remain of freedom of speech if we insist on shielding public institutions, the SC included, from honest criticism?.

An audit of flood control projects, the publication of the results, and the prosecution of those involved in anomalies is a good start. Basta magagawa talaga. It's amusing though that those who benefited from these anomalous insertions were probably right there clapping. 😏.

The 1Sambayan analysis hits it on the head. The 4th complaint was voted and acted on BEFORE the first three complaints were archived/dismissed. So how can the 4th complaint be barred by an occurrence THAT HAD NOT HAPPENED YET?.

TIL na pwede rin palang spelling ng "takbuhin" ang B-A-S-T-E.

It also imposes new procedural requirements and standards of evidence. It pushes impeachment towards a more judicial and less political process by explicitly requiring "impartiality." These are areas prior decisions have avoided in deference to the House's Constitutional role.

As there was no Committee referral here (the standard in Francisco), it provided a new threshold for "initiation" which is "dismissal." What I don't get is, if the first 3 complaints were "initiated" on Feb 5 (the day they were archived) how can they bar a 4th FILED THE SAME DAY?.

Just finished my first read through of the 97-page decision declaring the impeachment unconstitutional. My initial reaction? This completely rewrites how we've understood and implemented impeachment, both from a historical and Constitutional law perspective.

One thing is clear, by barring the impeachment on a procedural issue, the Filipino people are also barred from seeing for themselves the truth as regards the very serious charges against the VP. Ang tanong ngayon: So ano na? Kalimutan na lang?.

Talaga naman. Two possible ways forward from this. A motion for reconsideration is the immediate one, but the chances of it being granted are unsure, at best. The other is for the House to refile in a few months. Again, the political likelihood of that is unsure, at best.

Naghamon tapos nung kinall magpapalusot. Ano pa ba ang bago? 🤷.

A breakdown and analysis of the P142 Billion that Chiz Escudero inserted into the 2025 budget.

So bukod sa pagbaluktot sa Saligang Batas, pati pala budget binaluktot para makinabang ang mga ka-tropa. Eto ba talaga ang ibobotong Senate President ulit? 🤨.

Ewan ko sa inyo ha, pero diba parang bagay na bagay sa kanila ang kinuhang lawyer ng mga Duterte? 😏.

I'm glad we have one more Senator who we can rely on to perform his Constitutional duty.

Can't wait to see how he'll react if this dare is called. Walang iyakan ha? 😉.

The rule on double jeopardy - in both our Consti and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - bars further prosecution for the same crime after acquittal. The prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal nor ask for its reconsideration. So anong kababalaghan ito? 🙄.