Neon Heart Sports TV

Sa totoo lang! Bakit di nyo gawin nuon at ngayon?
Ctto.

Tapos sa gobyerno isisisi?

The Supreme Court dismisses petitions questioning the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte before the House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court has spoken, and with that ruling, one of the most persistent talking points of Sara Duterte, her legal team, and her supporters has lost its force.

For months, they insisted that the House of Representatives conducted a “mini-trial” and engaged in a “fishing expedition” during the impeachment proceedings. They argued that the House had overstepped its constitutional role by weighing evidence instead of merely determining whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach.

The Supreme Court has now dismissed the petitions questioning the House’s handling of the impeachment process. This affirms that the constitutional objections raised against the House proceedings do not warrant judicial intervention. The legal foundation of the impeachment process remains intact.

This matters because impeachment is, by design, a constitutional process with distinct roles for each institution. The House determines whether there is probable basis to impeach. The Senate conducts the trial. The judiciary does not rewrite that constitutional framework simply because one side dislikes how the evidence unfolded.

The repeated claims of a “mini-trial” and “fishing expedition” were never substitutes for addressing the substance of the allegations. The impeachment articles are supported by audit findings, official documents, sworn testimonies, and documentary evidence that deserve to be tested where the Constitution says they should be tested: in a Senate impeachment trial conducted under due process.

If the defense is confident that the evidence is weak, then the proper response is not to obstruct the proceedings or attack the process at every stage. It is to present counterevidence, cross-examine witnesses, and persuade the impeachment court on the merits.

With the Supreme Court having rejected these constitutional challenges, the conversation should now return to what has always mattered most: the evidence.

The Senate was never meant to serve as a venue for procedural theatrics or endless jurisdictional objections. It is the constitutionally designated forum where facts are examined, witnesses are heard, and accountability is determined.

The time for procedural excuses is rapidly running out. Now, let the trial proceed. And for those who spent months insisting that the House proceedings were fatally defective, perhaps it is finally time to retire that narrative.