Can They Do That?

 

Imagine, if you will, a world where you follow the recipe for adobo to the letter, but when you open the pot, you find a medium-rare Wagyu steak. 

You’re confused. You’re hungry. 

You look at the cookbook, and the pages have spontaneously rearranged themselves while you were chopping garlic.

This is essentially the vibe of Tito Sotto’s recent constitutional grievance. 

To paraphrase the man himself: The Constitution is being amended unconstitutionally via  Supreme  Court overreach. 

It’s a sentence that hits like a plot twist in a midday soap opera. 

It’s the political equivalent of saying, "I am legally breaking the law to tell you that the law is illegal.

In the red corner, we have the Constitution—the "Supreme Law of the Land," the ultimate "Thou Shalt Not." 

In the blue corner, we have the Supreme Court, the people whose entire job description is "Reading the Law)."

According to Sotto, the Court isn't just interpreting the rules anymore; they’re playing Mad Libs with them. 

It’s like a referee watching a basketball game, seeing a player travel, and instead of blowing the whistle, they decide that "traveling" now counts as a three-pointer if the player is wearing cool sneakers.

"It’s not an amendment; it’s a 'creative reimagining'!" — The Supreme Court, probably.

 

The irony here is thicker than a bowl of sopas on a rainy day.

 To amend the Constitution, you usually need a massive national production: plebiscites, signatures, debates that last longer than a Marvel cinematic phase.

But "overreach"? That’s the "ninja" method. 

Sotto’s concern is that the Court is basically using a Sharpie to add footnotes to the Constitution that eventually become the main text. 

If the Court says the sky is actually "neon lavender" because of a specific interpretation of the word "blue," then suddenly, we all have to go out and buy new sunglasses.

If we follow Sotto’s logic to its natural conclusion, we end up in a strange judicial multiverse:

• The Legislative Branch: Spends years debating a bill.

• The Executive Branch: Signs it with a fancy pen.

• The Supreme Court: Hits "Delete" and types "Lol, no" because of a comma they found in a 1920s footnote.

It makes you wonder: why bother with the whole "voting" thing if a group of people in black robes can just "interpret" a tricycle into a Boeing 747?

Whether you agree with Tito Sotto or think he’s just shouting at a very prestigious cloud, the mental image is golden. 

It’s the ultimate "I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed" moment in Philippine politics. We are witnessing the legal version of Inception—a dream within a law within an interpretation.

If the Constitution is the foundation of the house, Sotto is worried the Supreme Court is currently trying to turn the basement into a swimming pool without asking the architect.