MAGALONG IS NOT CREDIBLE
In the House, Congressman Chel Diokno and Leila De Lima and Gerville Luistro have been given a good amount of time to ask questions. Because of them, we got many meaningful and incriminating answers from Lawrence Lubiano to Pacifico Discaya.
And only the House has invited Mayor Vico Sotto so far - which has allowed for a direct confrontation between him and the Discayas unlike in the Senate where the spouses are free to lie.
In the Senate (when Chiz was not ousted yet and Marcoleta was chair of Blue Ribbon), Senators Risa Hontiveros and Raffy Tulfo have not been given meaningful time to ask questions.
The only thing we got so far in the Senate are DDS scripts and narratives and Jinggoy/Joel/Bong Go grandstanding and washing their hands - imagine Jinggoy and Joel were only revealed to be guilty by Brice Hernandez in the House of Representatives?
Anyways, both Houses have credibility issues that is a given. That’s why an independent commission is needed.
But Magalong is definitely wrong to say the Senate is more credible.
Mas pwede pang sabihin na both are not credible (except for a few Congressmen or Senators).
Magalong’s statement reveals his true nature - he is a DDS inside and outside.
I will reveal more personal stories how he has utang na loob kay Bong Go, Sara and Rodrigo Duterte in the coming days - madami na nagkekwento sakin.
#DDS
#VicoSotto
#BenjaminMagalong
Akbayan Rep Chel Diokno to all named in connection with/ allegedly anomalous flood control projects, make public your SALNs, sign waiver on bank secrecy. @gmanews@gmanewsbreaking 📹 Office of Rep Diokno
I love this interview of Ms. Jessica Soho with Ms. Heidi Mendoza and Ms. Cielo Magno about the flood control corruption.
I love na walang filter yung mga tanong at walang sugarcoat yung mga sagot nila. #KMJS @cielo_magno @HeidiMendoza45@KM_Jessica_Soho
Chiz Escudero slams the media for reporting that Lawrence Lubiano, his top campaign donor, bagged P5.16 billion in flood control projects, which he says is only about 1% of the national budget of P545.64 billion for such projects.
But Rappler desk editor Herbie Gomez reminds the Senate President that P5 billion, whether it’s 1% or a tenth of a percent, is still P5 billion of taxpayers’ money.
Bakit nag-eemote ang mga DDS?
Remember what you did and said to PNoy, Leni Robredo, at lalong lalo na kay Leila De Lima?!
Tapos ngayon galit kayo kay Vice Ganda? You have no moral ascendancy. Dahil kung dumi ng bibig at kawalan ng manners ang pinag-uusapan, kayo ang numero uno.
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. 👇🏻
@MasonRZambrano nakakahiya if matuloy sa totoo lang. kahihiyan ng Pilipinas at ng mga Pilipino. Ganito pala mga lidires natin, kung di magka intindihan, magsuntukan na lang. Official event pa. saan ka nun? sa pinas lang. kadiri. pero mas kadiri si baste.
@Padede25@PhilippineStar@alyasjah Business po eto. Not literal na walang pera. May pera of course. Pero hindi pa sila bumalik sa state na profitable. Yong mga revenue nila,pinambayad lang din ng mga bayarin; sahod, cost ng production and talent fees. Syempre mga taxes pa
@thatgal_ac Bisaya here from CDO. Most of my colleague sa work, they would say na hindi halatang bisaya ako when I speak with them in tagalog. May mga bisaya talaga na fluent sa tagalog at hindi matigas pakinggan hehehe
@iamsuperbianca I hope pipilian nila yong alam nilang dihado sa resources but deserving naman talaga. Yon na lang sana na magawa nila ng tama. Kasi kung di pa mapili at mapapasama sa pagbobotohan ng taong bayan, medyo tagilid. So hoping na #Chares yon.
So biglang nakita at narealize ni Bong Go na malaki ang naging papel ng Youth sa pagkakapanalo ni Bam Aquino kaya kunwari isusulong niya ang Expanded Free Tuition.
Pero kung titignan, Bumoto si Bong Go na ibaba ang 2025 budget for Free Education at approve niya ang Bicam Report