Duterte’s Revenge: Is Marcos Jr.’s Impeachment Bid a Legal Knockout or Political Circus?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — May 10, 2025

I. The Setup: A Political Soap Opera Masquerading as Law

The Cardemas’ impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is less a legal document and more a script for a Manila melodrama—complete with plot twists and glaring holes. Filed on May 8, 2025, by Duterte Youth Partylist founder Ronald Cardema and his wife, former Rep. Marie Cardema, the 26-page tirade accuses Marcos of betraying public trust and violating the Constitution by greenlighting former President Rodrigo Duterte’s transfer to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged crimes against humanity tied to his drug war. The plot thickened when House Secretary General Reginald Velasco’s staff played gatekeeper, refusing to accept the filing. Is this a constitutional crisis or just the latest Marcos-Duterte grudge match? Buckle up—this one’s a wild ride, but the legal case is about as sturdy as a house of cards.

II. Slicing Through the Legal Noise

The Cardemas’ complaint rests on three shaky pillars: ICC jurisdiction, impeachment grounds, and procedural antics. Let’s dissect each with a legal chainsaw.

A. ICC Jurisdiction: Sovereignty Sob Story or Legal Loser?

The Cardemas wail that Marcos surrendered Philippine sovereignty by allowing ICC intervention, claiming local courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Sorry, but Article 127(1) of the Rome Statute laughs in their face: withdrawal from the ICC (effective March 17, 2019, for the Philippines) doesn’t erase liability for crimes committed during membership. The Philippines joined in 2011, so Duterte’s drug war (2011–2019) is fair game. The ICC’s complementarity principle—stepping in when local courts are unwilling or unable—kicks in here. Philippine courts barely scratched the surface of Duterte’s drug war; a handful of street-level convictions don’t cut it.

The Cardemas also conveniently ignore Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which weaves international law into the domestic fabric. Marcos’ ICC cooperation isn’t betrayal—it’s treaty compliance. Compare this to the U.S.’s 2020 sanctions against ICC prosecutors: all bluster, no legal bite. The Cardemas’ sovereignty sob story is pure theater, not law.

B. Impeachment Grounds: Constitutional Crime or Political Whining?

The complaint throws “culpable violation of the Constitution” and “betrayal of public trust” at Marcos, citing Article XI, Section 2. But impeachment isn’t a free-for-all for political grudges. Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 2003) demands complaints be sufficient in form and substance, backed by hard facts. “Culpable violation” requires a deliberate constitutional gut-punch—Marcos’ ICC move, rooted in international law, doesn’t qualify. “Betrayal of public trust” needs gross misconduct, not just policy disputes, as Gutierrez v. House (G.R. No. 193459, 2011) clarifies. The Cardemas’ 26 pages are heavy on outrage, light on evidence. It’s like trying to convict someone with a Reddit thread.

C. Procedural Shenanigans: Stonewalling or Bureaucratic Blunder?

The filing crashed when Velasco’s staff refused to accept it, insisting only the Secretary General himself could receive complaints. The Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings require filing with the Secretary General’s office, but nothing demands Velasco’s personal handshake. Government offices have a ministerial duty to accept documents—basic admin law. This smells like political obstruction, not a legal roadblock. The Cardemas can refile, but Velasco’s team better have a better excuse than “he’s on a coffee break.”

III. The Real Game: Political Bloodsport, Not Justice

Forget law—this is the Marcos-Duterte “Uniteam” imploding in spectacular fashion. The 2022 alliance collapsed faster than a bad sitcom, with Duterte’s March 2025 ICC arrest as the match that lit the fuse. The Cardemas, Duterte’s loyal attack dogs, paint Marcos’ inaction as political persecution to crush Duterte’s clout before the 2025 midterms. It’s textbook lawfare: weaponizing legal processes for revenge. The timing, hot on the heels of Duterte’s Hague transfer, screams electoral sabotage, not constitutional purity. Protests and Senate probes led by Marcos’ sister, Imee, only crank up the drama (Al Jazeera, March 17, 2025). But Marcos isn’t innocent—he’s likely using the ICC to neuter a rival dynasty (Fulcrum, 2025). This isn’t justice; it’s a political cage fight, and the Filipino public is stuck in the bleachers.

IV. Ethics and Precedents: High Road or Low Blow?

Marcos’ ICC cooperation passes muster under RA 6713, which demands officials prioritize public good. Upholding human rights accountability? That’s a checkmark. But if Marcos is playing vendetta chess, it muddies the ethical waters—though the Cardemas offer zero proof beyond conspiracy vibes. Precedentially, this bid risks joining the graveyard of politically charged impeachments, like Corona’s 2011 ouster, where partisan muscle outshone legal rigor. Weaponizing impeachment for grudges could destabilize the Constitution, turning it into a political piñata.

V. The Verdict: A Legal Flop, But the Show Goes On

The Cardemas’ impeachment bid is a legal dud—ICC jurisdiction is ironclad, impeachment grounds are vapor, and procedural hiccups are fixable. Politically, it’s a masterclass in chaos, fueling the Marcos-Duterte feud while distracting from real governance. Recommendations? The Cardemas should refile, but they’ll need a beefier case to survive the House’s scrutiny. A judicial review could clarify filing duties, but don’t bet on Congress rushing to fix this mess. For ICC-local court clashes, lawmakers should craft legislation to align jurisdictions, sparing us future sovereignty tantrums. Until then, this impeachment saga is just another act in Philippine politics, where drama trumps substance every time.

Key Citations:

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.