Donate

KWEBA ni BAROK

Azcuna’s Truth vs. Escudero’s Lies: The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Robbery

Published by

Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

on

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C Biraogo — August 12, 2025

WHEN historians write about the death of Philippine democracy, July 25, 2025, will be the autopsy’s first incision.

In a decision drenched in partisan stench, the Supreme Court has not merely misinterpreted the 1987 Constitution—it has mangled it, twisting sacred text into a shield for the powerful while shredding the people’s right to accountability. Fiat justitia ruat caelum—let justice be done though the heavens fall—was once the judiciary’s clarion call. But in its July 25, 2025, ruling nullifying the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, the Court has inverted it: Let favoritism prevail, though the Constitution crumbles.

Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, that Uriah Heep of Philippine politics—ever humble in public, ever scheming in the shadows—emerges as the chief enabler, peddling historical fiction to justify this travesty. Meanwhile, the Court operates like a protection racket, expediting salvation for allies while stonewalling justice for the regime’s victims. This isn’t jurisprudence; it’s judicial arson, and it’s time to call the fire brigade.

I. The Lie: Escudero’s Revisionism

Escudero, once the self-styled “people’s prosecutor” grilling the corrupt, now shields allies with procedural sleight-of-hand. His hypocrisy is staggering: a former champion of transparency, he now distorts history to bury accountability.

In defending the Court’s intervention, Escudero misrepresented the 2003 impeachment attempt against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., claiming the Supreme Court “enjoined” Congress via a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This is not mere error; it’s deceit, violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which mandates: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC.

Contrast Escudero’s fiction with the eyewitness account of retired Justice Adolfo Azcuna, a framer of the 1987 Constitution and a sitting justice during the Davide saga. Azcuna demolishes the myth: “What we did was to issue a resolution calling on all the parties to maintain the status quo. It was an appeal. It was not an order.” The actual text from the Supreme Court’s October 28, 2003, resolution in Francisco v. House of Representatives confirms this—no TRO, just a non-binding plea to avert crisis.

Here’s the side-by-side demolition:

Escudero’s Fiction (Senate Statements) Actual 2003 SC Resolution (G.R. No. 160261 et al.)
Court issued a TRO “enjoining” Congress, setting precedent for halting impeachments. Resolution “requiring respondents… to comment on the petitions and setting the cases for oral argument,” with an appeal to “maintain the status quo.” No TRO or enjoinment. Francisco v. House, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003.
Implies coercive judicial power mirrors Duterte ruling. Non-coercive appeal to avoid crisis, emphasizing restraint per Azcuna’s account in transcripts (available via SC Clerk of Court).

This isn’t sloppy recall; it’s calculated revisionism. Escudero’s “people’s prosecutor” mask has slipped, revealing the enabler beneath.

II. The Crime: SC’s Constitutional Vandalism

The Supreme Court hasn’t guarded the Constitution; it’s vandalized it, acting as Duterte’s legal bodyguard in a ruling that reeks of bias, violating the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct: “A judge shall perform his or her judicial duties without favour, bias or prejudice.” Bangalore Principles, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC.

Map the timeline to see the protection racket:

  • Expedited Duterte Case: The Court issued its unanimous July 25, 2025, ruling nullifying Sara Duterte’s impeachment before Senate trial, citing the one-year bar and new “due process” requirements. Inquirer, July 26, 2025.
  • Delayed Opposition Cases: Petitions against Rodrigo Duterte’s extrajudicial killings (EJKs)—e.g., writs of amparo from 2016-2017—languished, with dismissals or transfers to lower courts, rubber-stamping thousands of deaths. Human Rights Watch, 2018.

The absurdity peaks in the Court’s “comprehension test”—requiring proof each endorsing House member understood the charges—while EJK pleas were dismissed without such scrutiny.

The real crime is constitutional arson: The ruling deletes Article XI, Section 3(4), which states a complaint endorsed by one-third of the House “shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.” No hearings, no evidence attachments, no “comprehension tests”—just a swift political check.

Framer Azcuna explains: “The second mode… is an alternative to committee hearings precisely for expedited accountability.” Inquirer, July 26, 2025.

Framer Christian Monsod concurs: “The Court declared the Constitution unconstitutional… making impeachment practically impossible.” Inquirer, October 12, 2017.

Retired Justice Antonio Carpio’s dissent in Gutierrez v. House (2011) nails it: “The House’s 1/3 vote IS the due process.” Gutierrez v. House, G.R. No. 193459.

The ruling buries precedents like a graveyard shift:

  • Francisco v. House (2003): Defined “initiation” as committee referral for Mode 1, respecting Mode 2’s bypass—now violated. Francisco v. House.
  • Gutierrez v. House (2011): Upheld simultaneous complaints, emphasizing impeachment as political—now ignored. Gutierrez v. House.
  • Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936): Warned against judicial intrusion into co-equal branches—now trampled. Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139.

Here’s the vandalism tabulated:

Constitutional Text (Art. XI, Sec. 3(4)) Court’s Added Requirements (July 25 Ruling) Effect
1/3 House endorsement “shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment.” No hearings mentioned. Mandatory hearings before endorsement. Renders Mode 2 redundant to Mode 1.
“Trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.” Emphasis on speed. Full evidence attachment to complaint. Delays process, invites challenges.
No verification of endorsers’ understanding required. “Comprehension test” for each member. Turns political vote into judicial quiz.

Precedent graveyard complete, the Constitution lies in ruins.

III. The Cover-Up: Institutional Gaslighting

The Court’s spokespeople spin this as a “rule of law” victory, with the decision “immediately executory” and framed as upholding constitutional limits against “abuse.” PhilStar, July 26, 2025.

Palace allies urged “respect” for the ruling, while pro-administration outlets painted it as a bulwark against “political harassment.” Inquirer, July 25, 2025.

This is gaslighting, papering over the theft.

Contrast this with scholarly outrage:

  • UP College of Law (90+ faculty): “The nullification… undermines the constitutional design for holding high officials responsible.” UP Law Statement, July 28, 2025.
  • Justice Carpio: Warned of “misapplied precedent” and judicial overreach. Rappler, July 27, 2025.
  • NUPL: Labeled the Supreme Court’s ruling on VP Sara’s impeachment ‘judicial overreach,’ arguing it conflicts with the limits set by Francisco v. House of Representatives. Philippine Star, July 30, 2025.

This isn’t consensus; it’s a cover-up, drowning out dissent with institutional bluster.

IV. The Resistance: Fightback Toolkit

Enough elegies; time for reckoning.

  1. Demand impeachment complaints against complicit justices under Article XI, Section 2, for culpable violation of the Constitution—their bias and overreach scream “betrayal of public trust.”
  2. Congress must defy this judicial coup using Article VI, Section 16(3), which grants the House “sole power” over its rules, including impeachment procedures. Refile the complaint post-one-year bar, codifying Mode 2’s intent.

Model Legislation: House Resolution No. [XXXX]
Codifying Impeachment Procedures Under Article XI, Section 3(4)

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court’s July 25, 2025, ruling imposes extra-constitutional requirements on Mode 2 impeachment, contravening the framers’ intent for a swift political check;

WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 16(3) vests in the House sole power over its rules;

BE IT RESOLVED:

  1. Mode 2 endorsements (1/3 vote) shall forthwith constitute Articles of Impeachment, without hearings or evidence attachments. [Annotation: Aligns with plain text, per Azcuna/Monsod.]
  2. Due process fulfilled at Senate trial; no “comprehension tests” required. [Annotation: Echoes Carpio in Gutierrez—vote is process.]
  3. This rule applies prospectively, defying retroactive judicial vetoes. [Annotation: Preserves separation of powers, per Angara.]

Litigation Roadmap for Civic Groups:

  • File a motion for reconsideration under Rule 52, invoking the operative facts doctrine to validate the House’s good-faith actions. Rules of Court, Rule 52.
  • Petition for certiorari if denied, arguing grave abuse under Article VIII, Section 1.
  • Launch public interest suits under Rule 65, citing bias per Bangalore Principles.
  • Mobilize for constitutional amendments clarifying Mode 2, turning outrage into reform.

Reckoning: Time to Reclaim the Law

This isn’t law—it’s larceny. The Court hasn’t interpreted the Constitution; it’s shoplifting it in broad daylight. Time to make the thieves pay.

Key Citations

  1. 1987 Philippine Constitution:
  1. Supreme Court Cases:
  • Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003): Defined impeachment initiation, one-year bar. LawPhil.
  • Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice (G.R. No. 193459, Feb. 15, 2011): Upheld Mode 2’s streamlined process. LawPhil.
  • Angara v. Electoral Commission (63 Phil. 139, 1936): Separation of powers doctrine. LawPhil.
  1. Ethical Standards:
  1. News and Scholarly Sources:
  1. Archival Sources:
Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

Leave a Reply

Hello,

I’m Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

Let’s connect

Join the fun!

Stay updated with our latest tutorials and ideas by joining our newsletter.

Recent posts