Justin Villaflor

Dolce Far Niente

[Justin Villaflor @Justinologist]

Leni Robredo treats the healthcare workers as VIPs. Whenever we volunteer to one of her initiatives e.g. Vaccine Express, we get:

- Shuttle service
- Breakfast, AM snacks, lunch, PM snacks, dinner
- COVID antigen testing before we start our duty
- Stipend

[Maris @Nazumejud]

After I had an affair, my husband never touched me again. For eighteen years, we lived like strangers, until a post-retirement physical exam when what the doctor said made me break down on the spot………

[afk cat @catisafk]

how i'm tryna be

[Thrilla the Gorilla @ThrillaRilla369]

Did you know that if you put 100 black ants and 100 red ants together in a jar, they usually coexist peacefully? But if you shake the jar hard, they immediately turn on each other and start killing one another. The red ants see the black ants as enemies, and the black ants see the red ants as enemies. Yet the real enemy is the one shaking the jar.
The same thing happens in human society. Before we turn on each other, we should stop and ask ourselves: who is shaking the jar?

[Justin Villaflor @Justinologist]

@mickaceriszeg @jajaggernaut Sama ako sa migration plans 🙋🏻‍♂️

[goma @soigomaa]

After a certain age, your parents slowly become your children. They ask simple questions, repeat stories, and depend on your patience the way you once depended on theirs. Very few understand this role reversal.What looks like innocence or inconvenience is really time coming full circle. Don't correct them harshly. Don't rush them. Care for them the way they once protected you. This is not a burden. It is repayment.

[Justin Villaflor @Justinologist]

Missing Siargao

[Justin Villaflor @Justinologist]

@mickaceriszeg Na busy lang sa life siguro 🥹 baka may Baguio gig ulit sila, abangan natin.

[Justin Villaflor @Justinologist]

@mickaceriszeg Yesss, fan ka na din ng CoJ. Hindi na tayo natuloy sa concert nila. 😩

[Justin Villaflor @Justinologist]

@mickaceriszeg @News5PH ang maldita naman 👁️👄👁️

[Joshua C. Agar @JoshuaCAgar]

Finally found the full footage from the Estrada impeachment proceeding when Senator Raul Roco reminding Senator Miriam Santiago of the quote by Dean George Malcolm himself about the business of law, which resulted in a fit from Sen. Santiago.

(c) GMA News

[Your Emotional Healing Coach @AfsaRosette]

The deepest proof of care is when a person lets you disturb their patterns, that’s when you’ll know they’re invested in you. See, ppl confuse effort with investment. Effort is flowers, dinners, late night calls. Cute, yes. But effort doesn’t always cost someone anything real.

[COCO @TWOTIMESABITCH]

my therapist advised “learn to calm your own storm instead of venting to others. it may feel therapeutic to let it all out, but you reinforce negative thoughts. it’s no one’s job but yours to pull yourself out of your problems. journal, meditate, exercise,and release” felt that

[Jason Smith - 上官杰文 @ShangguanJiewen]

China is now building small, affordable homes, that you can buy at Walmarts in the USA.

Buy an acre of land with some friends and put a few of these on there.

Nothing says stability like owning your own home with no loans.

[Facts & Politics @FACTmebaby]

READ!!! READ!!! READ!!! 🚨🚨

THE ULTIMATE CALL FROM FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO PUNO

OFFICIAL STATEMENT
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PhilConsa)

On the Supreme Court Ruling in G.R. No. 278353 “Sara Z. Duterte vs. House of Representatives, et al.”
July 30, 2025

The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) expresses its serious concern over the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 278353, which nullified the impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte. With due respect to the Honorable Court, we believe this decision overreaches constitutional boundaries, disrupts the separation of powers, and weakens Congress’ exclusive authority to hold impeachable officers accountable.

⸻

The Facts Cannot Be Ignored

Between December 2024 and February 2025, four impeachment complaints were filed against Vice President Duterte. The first three complaints, though officially docketed, were never pursued. They were neither found sufficient in form and substance nor referred for committee hearings. On February 5, 2025, a fourth complaint—this time endorsed by 215 members of the House, more than the required one-third—was transmitted as Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, in full accordance with the Constitution.

Yet on July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the fourth complaint was barred under the one-year rule in Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, on the theory that the filing of earlier complaints—even if not acted upon—already “initiated” the impeachment process.

⸻

This Interpretation Is Constitutionally Flawed

PhilConsa respectfully but firmly disagrees with this interpretation. The one-year bar rule was designed to prevent harassment through repeated impeachment proceedings—not to protect impeachable officers from ever facing trial by allowing them to take cover behind mere filings. As the Court itself held in Francisco v. House of Representatives, impeachment is only deemed initiated after the complaint is found sufficient in form and substance and referred to the Committee on Justice. The earlier complaints never reached that stage. To treat them as having “initiated” proceedings defies both logic and constitutional intent.

This ruling invites dangerous abuse. It opens the door for impeachable officials—or their allies—to deliberately file weak or premature complaints to “consume” the one-year window and block any real effort at accountability. This is not a safeguard against harassment—it is a blueprint for evasion.

⸻

Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism

This case called for judicial restraint, not judicial activism. The Constitution gave the House of Representatives the sole power to initiate impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try and decide it. These are textual, exclusive powers, and the Judiciary’s role in such matters should be limited to clear, grave abuses that nullify constitutional norms.

Instead, the Court stepped into the heart of a political process already underway—substituting its own judgment for that of a constitutional majority of the House. It interpreted the one-year bar so broadly that it now disables the very mechanism of impeachment in all but the rarest cases.

This ruling, though perhaps well-intentioned, is a clear instance of judicial activism. It turns the Judiciary from a neutral guardian of the Constitution into an arbiter of congressional timing and internal processes—matters the Constitution never assigned to the courts.

Judicial activism, if unchecked, becomes judicial supremacy. And that supremacy can, over time, paralyze the political departments that the people themselves empowered.

⸻see comment for cont. 👇🏻

[Justin Villaflor @Justinologist]

Some man is an island.

[Justin Villaflor @Justinologist]

Nakaka drain mag full load sa postgrad, if you have regular work. 😮‍💨 Glad that the semester’s over. TIME FOR NETFLIX