Marixx

instagram: @jmcastilloo

[Marixx @marickk_]

dali gyud ko matiguwang ani na company 😭

[Marixx @marickk_]

What could we have become, if only I had controlled myself that time? A thousand versions of us live in my head, but none in reality. Sometimes the hardest battles aren’t against others, but against yourself.

[Marixx @marickk_]

It’s funny how being called Mr. Marick still feels like it belongs to another version of me I haven’t met yet. HAHAHAHAHA

[Marixx @marickk_]

@News5PH Accountability must be pursued through facts and lawful means not emotional indictments masked as truth.

[Marixx @marickk_]

@News5PH The Constitution provides clear roles for each branch of government and the Senate acted within its prerogative. To label a legal decision as “betrayal” simply because it doesn’t align with one’s political goals is dangerous.

[Marixx @marickk_]

@RichHeydarian FACT”? That’s not a fact that’s just frustration disguised as analysis.

[Marixx @marickk_]

@mariannenriquez Accountability doesn’t mean skipping the Constitution. If the process is flawed from the start, no matter how serious the allegations, it collapses under its own weight. You can’t demand democratic justice while ignoring the very rules that protect it.

[DaretoaskPH @DaretoaskPH]

"SC DECISION CORRECT, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DID NOT FOLLOW THE FRANCISCO RULING AND VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON ONE-YEAR BAR RULE"

The House committed GRAVE ABUSE of DISCRETION.

The man behind the landmark Supreme Court ruling
Francisco, Jr. vs. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261), Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr.

Courtesy: One News PH
Watch full video interview here: https://t.co/eYrFzijNOZ

[Marixx @marickk_]

@andykittygirl @kikopangilinan Supporting the SC's ruling doesn’t mean treating it like Olympus it means respecting its constitutional role. Yes, an MR is allowed. But let’s not pretend the noise is just about accountability. Some don’t want review they want reversal, no matter what.

[Marixx @marickk_]

@beachygirlplus Critics being vocal doesn’t make the ruling wrong. The SC can revisit or clarify precedent if a new question of law or constitutional conflict arises. That’s not inconsistency it’s part of its mandate as the final interpreter of the Constitution.

[Marixx @marickk_]

@jijigewe Start by not weaponizing democratic tools to settle political grudges. If you’re serious about cleaning up the system, then don’t act like accountability only applies to your enemies.
Otherwise, you’re not fighting corruption you’re just replacing it with hypocrisy.

[Marixx @marickk_]

@jesusfalcis If the facts were really that strong you wouldn’t need to spin them so hard. This isn’t justic.
It’s politics. It’s the weaponization of the Constitution under the guise of defending it.

[Marixx @marickk_]

@vince2681 Justice isn't served by public outrage but by the rule of law. If we abandon that, we’re not standing with the people, we're standing on shaky ground.

[Marixx @marickk_]

@PilipinoTotoo The classic 'DDS ka' card the last refuge when there’s nothing left to counter the argument. If daming sinasabi is your issue, maybe it’s because complex issues can’t be solved with emojis and one-liners.

[Marixx @marickk_]

@MercifulSauron @PilipinoTotoo @iamdinodeleon Calling something 'incoherent' without actually disproving a single point is not an argument it's avoidance wrapped in condescension. If you believe the argument lacks coherence, then engage with its substance. Otherwise, you're not debating you're deflecting.

[Marixx @marickk_]

@PilipinoTotoo @iamdinodeleon it thrived under weak institutions. Justice doesn’t wait for perfect conditions; it requires courage, consistency, and memory. You can’t rebuild integrity on denial

[Marixx @marickk_]

@PilipinoTotoo @iamdinodeleon Classic deflection. When confronted with facts, you reduce the conversation to ‘weh’ as if sarcasm magically erases accountability. The ‘kauna-unahang problema ng bansa’? That’s historical amnesia at best, and selective outrage at worst. Corruption didn’t begin with one person

[Marixx @marickk_]

@Spanish_Pinay That’s how constitutional democracies work. You can disagree, scholars can critique, and institutions can raise concern but only the SC has the constitutional mandate to interpret the law with binding effect.