Resignation Won’t Save Sara Duterte: Senate May Still Ban Her for Life!

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

The recent impeachment of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte has ignited a complex legal and political debate: Can the Senate Impeachment Court impose a lifetime ban on her holding public office, even if she resigns before or during the trial? This question delves into the core of the nation's constitutional processes and the pursuit of accountability for public officials.

Impeachment Proceedings and Potential Resignation

On February 5, 2025, the House of Representatives impeached Vice President Duterte on charges including a culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust. The allegations encompass a purported plot to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., large-scale corruption involving confidential funds, and other serious misconduct. The case now awaits trial in the Senate, which is constitutionally mandated to convene as an impeachment court upon receipt of the articles of impeachment.

Amid these proceedings, speculation has arisen that Vice President Duterte might consider resignation as a strategy to evade the trial and potential penalties. However, legal experts and lawmakers assert that resignation does not necessarily shield an official from the consequences of impeachment.

Legal Perspectives on Resignation and Disqualification

1-Rider Party-list Representative Rodge Gutierrez, a member of the House Prosecution Panel, emphasizes that the impeachment process serves two primary purposes: removal from office and the imposition of a penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding any public office. He argues that resignation might circumvent removal but should not negate the possibility of disqualification. Gutierrez states, "The purpose of impeachment is one, removal from office, and two, the penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding a public office. And I believe resignation, while it might avoid the first penalty, the second penalty is still there." 

This viewpoint is echoed by House Assistant Majority Leader and Lanao del Sur 1st District Representative Zia Alonto Adiong, who underscores that the impeachment trial must proceed irrespective of the Vice President's resignation. He notes that once the House transmits the impeachment complaint, the Senate is constitutionally obligated to convene as an impeachment court and render a decision on the charges. Adiong explains, "The process of the impeachment trial is not tied up with the resignation of the certain official na na-impeached, di ba?" 

Historical Context and Constitutional Interpretations

The Philippine Constitution provides the framework for impeachment but does not explicitly address the impact of resignation on the proceedings. Historically, in cases such as those of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and Commission on Elections Chairman Andres Bautista, officials resigned before the Senate could convene as an impeachment court, leading to the cessation of the process. However, these precedents do not conclusively determine whether the Senate retains jurisdiction to impose disqualification after a resignation.

Legal scholars offer differing interpretations. Some argue that the Senate should retain the authority to proceed with the trial to fulfill the impeachment's dual objectives. Others contend that resignation renders the process moot, as the primary goal of removal from office becomes irrelevant. This divergence highlights the need for a definitive constitutional or legislative clarification.

Implications for Democratic Institutions

The outcome of this legal debate carries significant implications for the integrity of the Philippines' democratic institutions. Allowing resignation to nullify the possibility of disqualification could set a precedent enabling officials to evade accountability through strategic resignation. Conversely, asserting the Senate's authority to impose disqualification post-resignation reinforces the principle that public officials are answerable for their actions, irrespective of their office status.

As the nation anticipates the Senate's actions, the resolution of this issue will not only impact Vice President Duterte's political future but also shape the contours of executive accountability and the rule of law in the Philippines.

The Rise of Vico Sotto: How Pasig City Broke Free from a Political Dynasty

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

In 2019, Vico Sotto launched an ambitious campaign to challenge the deeply entrenched Eusebio family, which had controlled Pasig City for 27 years. His campaign, in stark contrast to the grand spectacles of his opponents, was built on humility, integrity, and a commitment to transparency. While the Eusebios held large rallies featuring big stages, professional dancers, and appliance raffles, Vico's sorties were modest gatherings in empty lots, side streets, and even parking spaces.

One of his rallies was held in the parking lot of an apartment in Santolan, where he spoke passionately to a small crowd. His campaign stage was often just the back of a small truck, shared with his congressional candidate, his father, and a handful of supporters. Many doubted that he could defeat a powerful political dynasty—but Pasig’s voters had other plans.

A Victory for Good Governance

Despite being the underdog, Vico Sotto pulled off a stunning victory. The people of Pasig, weary of decades of political monopoly, quietly expressed their dissatisfaction through the ballot box. They chose change, and in doing so, they set the city on a transformative path.

Upon assuming office, Sotto wasted no time in making his governance as transparent as possible. Under his administration, project bidding processes became open to public scrutiny, ensuring that taxpayer money was spent efficiently and without corruption.

One striking example of this efficiency was a street lighting project near an elementary school in Santolan, which was completed with a remarkably low budget of just ₱3 million. Unlike traditional projects, there were no signs declaring, "This is a project of Vico Sotto." The work spoke for itself.

A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility

By 2024, Mayor Sotto had led Pasig City to new heights of financial prudence, culminating in a remarkable achievement: the allocation of ₱9.2 billion for a brand-new City Hall complex. Unlike previous large-scale government projects that often led to budget deficits or misappropriations, this initiative was fully funded through savings and efficiency measures, ensuring that no department’s budget was compromised.

The current Pasig City Hall, built decades ago, has long been deemed structurally inadequate, with significant deficiencies in its columns and beams. The new City Hall complex aims to provide a safe, functional, and modern workspace for government operations. However, the project has faced scrutiny from business leaders and philanthropists, who argue that the budget should be cut to a third of its original amount. Despite the criticisms, the city government stands firm, asserting that the new City Hall is a necessary investment in Pasig’s future.

International Recognition and Leadership

Mayor Sotto’s dedication to transparent governance has not gone unnoticed. In 2021, the U.S. State Department named him one of its 12 global Anti-Corruption Champions, a testament to his efforts in eradicating graft from local governance. He was also included in Tatler Asia’s list of "Asia’s Most Influential" leaders for two consecutive years, highlighting his impact on governance and public service.

The Road to 2025 and Beyond

As Pasig City approaches the 2025 elections, the impact of Vico Sotto’s leadership is undeniable. He has proven that honest, efficient governance is not just a dream—it is a reality that can be achieved with the right leadership.

His re-election campaign is expected to be a strong one, backed by a track record of transparency, fiscal responsibility, and genuine public service. The message is clear: when people choose good leaders, communities thrive.

As Filipinos prepare to cast their votes in 2025, Pasig City stands as a shining example of what can happen when citizens break free from traditional political dynasties and choose leaders who truly serve the public good. 

The question now is: will the rest of the country follow Pasig’s lead?

Duterte’s Shocking ‘Kill 15 Senators’ Remark Sparks Legal Firestorm – Is He in Trouble?

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

In a recent political rally, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte made a controversial remark suggesting the elimination of 15 senators to create vacancies for his party's candidates. This statement has ignited a firestorm of criticism from lawmakers, legal experts, and the public, raising concerns about the normalization of violent rhetoric in the nation's political discourse.

Immediate Reactions and Legal Actions

The Philippine National Police (PNP) responded promptly by filing a criminal complaint against Duterte. Major General Nicolas Torre III submitted the complaint to the Department of Justice, emphasizing the potential danger of such statements, especially given Duterte's significant following. Torre warned that supporters might interpret the remark literally, posing risks to public safety. 

House Deputy Minority Leader and ACT Teachers party-list Representative France Castro also condemned Duterte's comment, stating, "Murder and terrorism are not a joke." She urged authorities to take the former president's words seriously to prevent any potential incitement to violence. 

Legal Implications of Vague Threats

Duterte's failure to specify which 15 of the 24 senators he was referring to adds a layer of ambiguity, complicating legal proceedings. Under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, crimes such as grave threats (Article 282) and inciting to sedition (Article 142) typically require a clear and identifiable target. The absence of specific names makes it challenging to establish a direct threat, potentially weakening any legal case. 

However, the broader political and ethical implications remain significant. Even if the statement doesn't meet the legal criteria for prosecution, it contributes to a culture of violent political rhetoric, which many argue is detrimental to democratic discourse.

Context of a Pattern of Behavior

This incident is not isolated. Duterte has a history of making incendiary remarks. Notably, during his tenure as mayor of Davao City, he admitted to maintaining a "death squad" aimed at eliminating criminals, a claim he reiterated during a Senate inquiry. While he denied authorizing extrajudicial killings during his presidency, these admissions have fueled ongoing investigations by the International Criminal Court into potential crimes against humanity related to his administration's war on drugs. 

Adding to the controversy, Vice President Sara Duterte, the former president's daughter, has faced her own legal challenges. The National Bureau of Investigation recommended filing criminal charges against her for inciting to sedition and making grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family. These incidents highlight a troubling trend of high-ranking officials engaging in threatening rhetoric. 

Political Ramifications

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has publicly denounced Duterte's remarks, emphasizing the need for responsible discourse, especially from former leaders. He stated that such comments are unproductive and could incite unnecessary tension. 

The incident has also sparked discussions about the boundaries between humor, rhetoric, and genuine threats in political speech. While some of Duterte's supporters argue that the comment was made in jest, critics contend that jokes about violence, particularly from influential figures, are unacceptable and potentially dangerous.

Conclusion

Former President Rodrigo Duterte's suggestion of killing 15 senators has ignited a multifaceted debate encompassing legal, ethical, and political dimensions. While the ambiguity of his statement may shield him from legal repercussions, the broader impact on political discourse and public perception is profound. This episode underscores the critical need for responsible communication from public officials to maintain the integrity of democratic institutions and the safety of public dialogue.