Luistro’s “Fitness Test” Impeachment: 2028 Campaign Ad Masquerading as Justice

Jinky Bitrics, Casting Director: Sara’s Audition Starts Now

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — March 24, 2026

WELL, well, well. House Committee on Justice Chairperson Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro has finally said the quiet part out loud on national radio. The impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, she declares, are not merely about removing an errant public officer. No, no. They are a pre-2028 fitness test so that the sovereign Filipino people won’t have to wait for election season to discover whether Sara is “Malacañang material.”

Accountability versus impunity, she lectures us, as if she just invented the wheel. And because Sara already announced her presidential bid on February 18, we cannot “separate” the impeachment from the 2028 race.

Ladies and gentlemen, grab your popcorn and your copy of the 1987 Constitution. This is not oversight. This is electoral engineering with a gavel.

***“HINDI IMPEACHMENT ITO. CASTING CALL ITO.”***

Fitness Test? Just Pre-2028 Election Sabotage

Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines lists the impeachable offenses with surgical precision: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. Nowhere – and I mean nowhere – does it say “fitness for future presidential ambition.”

Luistro is not conducting a congressional hearing; she is auditioning for the role of national talent scout. By framing the process as a preview of Sara’s 2028 credentials, she has transformed a solemn quasi-judicial proceeding into a two-year-long political billboard.

Contrast that with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Impeachment is a removal tool, not a referendum. The Supreme Court in Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 2003) hammered this home: initiation is filing plus referral, and the one-year bar exists precisely to prevent exactly this kind of serial harassment. Gutierrez v. House (G.R. No. 193459, 2011) added that while impeachment is political, it is not a free-for-all. Due process still applies.

Luistro’s “mini-trial” scheduled for March 25 is not accountability theater – it’s a dress rehearsal for the campaign ads. And the Constitution was never meant to be the scriptwriter.

Luistro vs. Duterte: Bias and Boycott in Perfect Harmony

On Luistro: The lawyer-legislator who suddenly remembers “public office is a public trust” only when it’s convenient. Her radio sermon betrays prejudgment so blatant it could get her sanctioned under Republic Act No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Section 4 – the Code of Conduct demanding justness, sincerity, and neutrality. Instead, she is using the House Committee on Justice as a political cudgel, selective as a Marcos ally’s memory. Remember how quickly her panel junked impeachment complaints against President Marcos for lacking “ultimate facts”? Yet Sara’s recycled confidential-funds rap sheet gets the red-carpet treatment.

This is not oversight. This is vendetta dressed in legalese. Due process? What due process? The Supreme Court already struck down the 2025 impeachment on technical and fairness grounds. Now we get round two – same allegations, fresh calendar, same political grudge.

On Sara Duterte: Oh, the irony. The Vice President who once preached “public office is a public trust” now treats the impeachment complaint the way a teenager treats a summons – by ghosting it. Her camp’s Consolidated Verified Answer Ad Cautelam essentially says “there’s nothing to answer here,” then skips the March 25 hearings.

This is not a principled stand; this is a calculated persecution narrative designed to turn a legal proceeding into campaign martyrdom. “They’re out to get me!” plays beautifully to the Duterte base. It evades accountability while rallying the faithful. Public office as public trust? More like public office as political prop. The Constitution demands answers; Sara is giving us a masterclass in evasion.

Impeachment Weaponized: Law Becomes Campaign Ammo

Here is the rot at the heart of it all. Luistro’s “fitness test” rhetoric + Duterte’s boycott strategy = impeachment reduced to electoral warfare. The House initiates, the Senate supposedly tries, but everyone knows the real venue is the 2028 ballot box.

The Senate trial – if it ever happens – will not be a constitutional check; it will be a popularity contest with robes. Evidence? Pfft. Polls and soundbites will decide. This is precisely what the framers feared: the impeachment clause weaponized into an “electoral shortcut.” When the mechanism meant to protect the Republic becomes just another tool for dynastic demolition or dynastic survival, the rule of law dies laughing.

Rule of Law Wake-Up Call: Enough with the Circus

Beneath the sarcasm lies something deadly serious. Impeachment is not reality TV. It is not a pre-election vetting service. It is a solemn constitutional process that must be anchored in evidence, due process, and nothing else.

The House must prove the allegations – misuse of P612.5 million confidential funds, the alleged “contract to kill,” betrayal of public trust – with specificity and proof, not innuendo and radio soundbites. Sara must be given a genuine chance to rebut, not just the illusion of one. Anything less turns the Constitution into toilet paper and the Filipino people into spectators at a circus.

Public Service Mockery: Hypocrisy on Full Display

Ah, the lofty rhetoric. Luistro preaches “accountability opposite of impunity.” Sara’s camp screams “persecution.” Both sides wrap themselves in the flag while treating the sovereign people like gullible extras in their power play.

One side uses legal proceedings as a political hammer. The other uses legal technicalities as a shield. Meanwhile, the real issues – confidential funds, unexplained wealth, threats of assassination – get buried under campaign optics. Public service? More like public relations warfare. The Filipino taxpayer funds this farce while both camps polish their 2028 branding. Genuine pro-people governance? Try finding it with a search warrant.

Legal Exit Ramps: What Happens Next?

For Luistro & the House:

Proceed with the March 25 “mini-trial” (ex parte if Sara ghosts it) → risks another SC smackdown for due-process violations.
Dismiss the complaints → exposes the entire exercise as the sham we all suspect.
Fast-track to Senate → forces a trial that will be pure politics anyway.

For Sara Duterte:

Strategic SC petition challenging the process on due-process and bias grounds (high chance of success given the 2025 precedent).
Sudden resignation → triggers perpetual disqualification push, but also ends the spectacle and lets her play full-time candidate.
Selective participation → controls the narrative but risks exposing damaging evidence.

Likely Resolutions:

Senate acquittal (the political math is obvious) → Sara emerges bloodied but breathing, evidence aired for the voters.
SC intervention again → process dies on technicality, both sides claim victory, nothing learned.
Conviction (miracle required) → political earthquake, Sara disqualified, 2028 landscape redrawn.

Final Verdict: Institutions in Peril, Rule of Law on the Brink

This saga is not strengthening institutions. It is eviscerating them. The House looks like a partisan attack dog. The Senate will look like a rubber stamp. The Supreme Court will once again be forced to play referee in a political cage match.

For the 2028 elections: Sara may emerge as the ultimate victim-hero if the process stinks of harassment. Or the evidence may finally stick and crater her brand. Either way, the Filipino voter deserves better than a reality show.

The real danger? If impeachment becomes indistinguishable from electoral politics, it loses all legitimacy as a constitutional safeguard. We will have turned the ultimate check on power into the ultimate campaign stunt.

Recommendations – because someone has to say it:

The House must shut up about “fitness tests” and stick to proving the elements of impeachable offenses.
Sara must stop the boycott and answer on the merits – or forever surrender the moral high ground.
Both sides must treat this as a legal proceeding, not a TikTok war.
The Supreme Court should stand ready to slap down any further procedural abuse.
And the sovereign Filipino people? Watch the evidence, not the headlines. Demand facts, not theater.

Because public office is a public trust. Not a public circus.

Barok has spoken.
The rot has been dissected. The autopsy is complete. Now let the rule of law – not the rule of ratings – decide.