The Due Process The Duterte Lawyers Like

 

Sara Duterte’s lawyers are pitching a wild constitutional remix: they claim investigating her is illegal, yet hurling baseless accusations is totally fine—provided no one actually checks the facts.

Experts describe this doctrine as a de facto, yet unseen, application of due process.”

According to this emerging philosophy, the House of Representatives of the Philippines must initiate impeachment… preferably with eyes closed, ears covered, and absolutely no questions asked. 

Evidence is tricky. If you allow hearings now, you might end up knowing the truth later.

Meanwhile, the Senate of the Philippines is said to be the only place where anything resembling a “trial” may occur—because clearly, gathering facts beforehand is an outrageous violation of procedural purity.

Instead of building a case, why not just go with the flow?

Observers note that the House Committee on Justice has long engaged in hearings, witness testimonies, and evidence review. 

In this transformative era of legal revisionism, legal precedents are seen merely as polite suggestions—similar to speed limits you can always ignore ... or resolutions you don’t have to keep.

Critics of the defense’s argument have pointed out a minor inconsistency: refusing to attend hearings and then complaining about a lack of due process is a bit like skipping class and blaming the teacher for your ignorance. 

But perhaps this, too, is part of the strategy—if you never show up, the process can never technically include you.

There is also growing concern about the potential ripple effects. 

If the Supreme Court of the Philippines were to agree, the impeachment process could be streamlined into a highly efficient system where:

• The House files cases without evidence
• The Senate receives cases without context
• And the public receives explanations… eventually, maybe

Efficiency has never looked so mysterious.

Supporters of the traditional system argue that impeachment was designed with a simple division of labor: the House investigates, the Senate tries. 

Yet, this interpretation dares to defy conventional wisdom, proposing that we simply trust the process to self-correct, leaving investigation behind.

At its core, the debate raises a profound constitutional question: is accountability best achieved through scrutiny—or through carefully avoiding it?

For now, the nation watches as legal arguments evolve in real time, proving once again that in Philippine politics, the Constitution is not just a document—it’s a living text, occasionally rewritten by whoever has the most creative interpretation that week.

Because in the end, why confront evidence when you can redefine it out of existence?

Satire: Did Sara Snub The Supreme Court?

In an impressive show of legal acrobatics, Vice President Sara Duterte has managed to simultaneously be defended by and snub the Supreme Court.

This masterful display of legal maneuvering leaves the nation wondering if she's playing 4D chess (playing on a higher level of complexity as compared to her opponents).

True to the form of any gripping political thriller, this saga kicked off with HOR attempting to impeach the VP.

Remember what they did last summer? 

Apparently, back in the 19th Congress, someone tried to impeach Sara, but Senator Chiz Escudero, in a move that legal scholars are calling "peak Chiz," allegedly delayed the proceedings to give Sara her mission possible as she ran to the Supreme Court for help.

The Supreme Court, bless their robes, stepped in, declaring that Sara deserved a chance to defend herself, even if that meant slowing down the impeachment process to a turtle pace. 

"They argued that she deserved due process ... a legal term likened to an unlimited rice promotional gimmick ...  a pretext for endless excuses."

Others viewed it as a stalling tactic to provide endless justifications ... an  infinite opportunity to explain her actions."

Fast forward to the present day, and the House of Representatives, dutifully following the Supreme Court's instructions, has granted Sara all the "due process" she could possibly want. 

They've scheduled hearings, sent invitations, and even offered to provide her with a complimentary karaoke machine to ease the tension... and back rubs - a good way to soothe impeachment jitters.

But Sara? Sara's a no-show. She's ghosting the Supreme Court. She's leaving them on read.

"We bent over backwards to give her a fair hearing," lamented one anonymous Supreme Court Justice, reportedly while stress-eating a box of polvoron. 

"We practically wrote her defense for her! And this is how she repays us? By not even showing up?"

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, known for his sharp wit and even sharper legal mind, is reportedly drafting a strongly worded memo to Sara, reminding her that "due process" is a privilege, not a suggestion.

It is not an optional guideline, convenience, or polite recommendation that can be ignored when it is uncomfortable or inefficient.

"I defended her!" Leonen reportedly exclaimed ... "I argued that she deserved a chance to be heard! 

And now she's just... ignoring us? Is this what I get for believing in the system?"

The question now is: what will the Supreme Court do? 

Will they shrug their shoulders and declare the whole thing a wash and decide to stop trying? Or will they simply abandon the effort entirely?

Without a doubt, Sara Duterte has reduced the Philippine legal system to a reality television spectacle ... and we're all just tuning in to see what happens next.