Impeachment Abyss: Tongol’s Threat to Jail the House Sparks Chaos

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 17, 2015

I. The Constitutional Molotov Cocktail: Tongol’s Senate Power Grab

Lawyer Reginald Tongol, the Senate’s self-anointed impeachment oracle, lobbed a grenade into the Sara Duterte impeachment saga: the Senate, wielding Rule V of the Senate Rules of Procedure (not VII, as he clumsily misquoted) of its impeachment rules, can jail the entire House of Representatives for defying its order to certify compliance with the Constitution’s one-year impeachment bar (Inquirer). The Inquirer’s catch on his Rule VII blunder—sloppy mistake or calculated misdirection?—only fuels suspicion. This isn’t just bold; it’s a constitutional coup attempt, one co-equal branch threatening to handcuff the other. Game of Thrones has nothing on this: When you play the game of contempt, you win or you’re locked in a Senate dungeon. Tongol’s gambit risks torching the delicate balance of power in a Red Wedding-style showdown.

II. The Legal Thunderdome: Tongol’s Arsenal vs. Constitutional Defenses

Tongol’s War Cry: Senate’s Contempt Bazooka

Tongol’s not swinging blindly; he’s armed with legal heavy artillery. The Supreme Court’s Arnault v. Nazareno (1950) blessed Congress’s sui generis contempt power as a self-defense mechanism (ACCRALAW). Rule V, forged in the 2012 Corona trial, grants the Senate motu proprio authority to punish “disrespect” without a motion—think of it as a legal guillotine for anyone, from House prosecutors to Speaker Martin Romualdez (Inquirer). Francisco v. House (2003) anoints the Senate as the “sole judge” of impeachment trials, giving Tongol a battering ram to demand House compliance with the one-year bar (Art. XI, Sec. 3(5)) to avert a constitutional meltdown (Abagosto). His pitch: the Senate’s just policing the process, ensuring the House doesn’t sneak a second impeachment punch at Duterte.

Counterstrike: The House’s Separation of Powers Shield

Tongol’s fortress is crumbling under scrutiny. The House’s exclusive power to initiate impeachment (Art. XI, Sec. 3(1)) is untouchable—a constitutional moat the Senate can’t cross with contempt orders. The Senate’s “remand” demand, forcing the House to certify and recommit in the 20th Congress, is a sneaky veto on the House’s turf. Senator Vicente Sotto III nailed it: the remand is “flawed and unconstitutional” (Sotto). The Senate already grabbed jurisdiction by issuing summons to Duterte—backtracking now is like a judge rewriting the case mid-trial. The Pharmally ruling (2024) shredded the Senate for contempt abuse, demanding due process for mere witnesses (SC Pharmally). If witnesses get due process, doesn’t the co-equal House deserve better than a kangaroo court? Imagine 300 House members dragged to Senate detention—Les Misérables with a Filipino twist, all subpoenas and zero fairness.

Ethical Landmine: Tongol’s Legal Tightrope

Tongol’s bravado stumbles over the Code of Professional Responsibility’s Rule 1.01, banning deceitful conduct. Hyping contempt while Senate President Escudero lets senator-judges like Alan Cayetano play Duterte’s cheerleader—flouting Rule XIV’s ban on senator-driven motions—smells like political hypocrisy (Sotto). Escudero’s refusal to issue gag orders, citing “open discussion,” mocks Tongol’s sub judice preaching (Inquirer). Is this a trial or a noontime variety show? Tongol’s legal threats look more like a script for political theater than a defense of justice.

III. The Precedent Apocalypse: Contempt’s Legal Quagmire

Tongol’s threat tumbles into a legal minefield. The Balag v. Senate (2018) capped contempt detention at the inquiry’s duration—no indefinite gulag allowed (ACCRALAW). So, what’s the Senate’s endgame? Lock up Romualdez until the 20th Congress bends? Detain 300 House members in a Senate basement? Cue the Philippine Les Misérables—a chaotic parade of lawmakers, drowning in subpoenas. Sabio v. Gordon (2006) warned that contempt must respect rights, not fuel vendettas (SC Yearender). Tongol’s threat ignores this, risking a constitutional explosion over a power grab with no precedent. One chamber jailing another? That’s not law—it’s Game of Thrones with worse dialogue.

IV. The Political Inferno: Impeachment as Reality TV

This isn’t a legal duel; it’s political Armageddon. The House, led by spokesperson Princess Abante, fires back: “We’d rather be ‘tambaloslos’ than ‘kawatan’”—a jab at Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds (Inquirer). The House’s “ayuda” programs, however questionable, are framed as better than stealing public coffers. This is no courtroom—it’s a street brawl. Tongol’s contempt threat is a prop in a Duterte-Romualdez grudge match, with Escudero’s refusal to gag senator-judges like Cayetano turning the trial into a ratings grab (Inquirer). The House’s defiance—delaying receipt of the Senate’s order—screams “we bow to no one” (MSN). If the Senate pulls the contempt trigger, it’s not just a legal blunder—it’s an inter-branch war declaration.

V. The Final Gavel: Tongol’s Paper Tiger Meets Its Doom

Tongol’s contempt threat is a constitutional dud—legally shaky, politically catastrophic, and ethically rotten. Rule V’s contempt power may flex muscle, but it collapses against the House’s ironclad impeachment authority and the Supreme Court’s due process sledgehammer (SC Pharmally). Escudero’s refusal to enforce sub judice rules, letting senator-judges run wild, exposes this trial as a political circus, not a court (Inquirer). If the Senate backs off, its impeachment credibility tanks—reduced to a toothless tribunal. If it fires the contempt missile? The Supreme Court’s ready to vaporize it, citing Pharmally or Sabio to crush overreach. This standoff isn’t House of the Dragon—it’s Pinoy Big Brother with gavels and grudges. Call to action: Brace for impact. If the Senate dares arrest House members, expect a constitutional bloodbath—and the Supreme Court to swing the executioner’s axe.

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.