The Senate is Not a Super-Court: MASADA’s Absurd Attack on a Judge Doing Her Job

Inside the Delusional Legal Theory That Treats the Impeachment Court Like the Supreme Tribunal of the Universe

By Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo — September 6, 2026

BEHOLD, the Masa Sara Duterte Alliance (MASADA). In another context, that name evokes the stoic last stand of Jewish rebels against the Roman Empire—a tragic tale of honor, desperation, and, ultimately, political suicide. It is a perfect moniker for the group of Duterte loyalists threatening the very foundation of the Philippine legal order to save their embattled Queen.

Their latest contribution to jurisprudence is not a fortress on a rock, but a sinking raft of legal absurdity. The Masa Sara Duterte Alliance, led by Benito Ranque, is demanding that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, issue a show-cause order against a lowly Quezon City Regional Trial Court (QC RTC) judge. Her crime? Doing her damn job.

The target is Judge Maria Angelica P. de Ramos of QC RTC Branch 98. She had the audacity—the sheer, unmitigated gall—to read a prosecutor’s resolution, find probable cause for three counts of grave threats, and issue an arrest warrant against Vice President Sara Duterte. The Vice President, you may recall, is the woman who gleefully told the world she had contracted an assassin to kill President Bongbong Marcos, the First Lady, and Speaker Romualdez if she happened to be killed first.

The crime of issuing a warrant, according to these legal eagles, is that it “obstructs justice” in the separate impeachment trial. They cry that the Senate’s Rule 18—a gag order preventing lawyers and witnesses from trying the case in the media—has been violated. They argue that the Senate should act motu proprio to spank the judge for interfering.

Let us dissect this malformed legal argument. I must warn the faint-hearted, the autopsy is not pretty.

***“VP SARA DUTERTE ASSASSIN PLOT: She Joked About Murder, Got a Warrant, and Her Fans Want the Senate to Arrest… the Judge?!”***

The “I Called It First” Constitutional Fallacy

The bedrock of MASADA’s claim is the temporal argument: “We were here first.” The impeachment trial involves the same set of facts, therefore, the criminal court must take a backseat.

This is a load of crap. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (1987 Constitution) is not a playground where the Senate gets to call “dibs.” Article XI, Section 3(7) is the death blow to this delusion: an official convicted in an impeachment court “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law.”

Do you see that, MASADA? Nevertheless. It is the Founding Fathers’ way of saying: “Take away her job, and then lock her up.” Impeachment is about fitness for office; criminal prosecution is about liberty and guilt. One is political surgery; the other is a criminal rectal exam. They are not mutually exclusive.

Rule 18: A Gag Order, Not a Muzzle on the Constitution

Yes, Senator Chiz Escudero has laid down the law: no talking to the press about the merits.

But Judge de Ramos is not a lawyer for the defense, a prosecutor, or a senator-judge. She is a judge in a different court. Unless the Senate has quietly passed a resolution declaring itself the Supreme Tribunal of the Universe, its rules of decorum do not apply to the judicial branch.

Did the judge hold a press conference and say, “I think Sara is guilty as hell, everyone should convict her in the Senate”? No. She wrote a judicial order finding probable cause. If that is “obstruction of justice,” then every arrest warrant issued in the Philippines since 1898 is an obstruction of something.

MASADA is attempting to weaponize a speech regulation against an act of adjudication. It is a category error so profound it makes my head hurt.

The Senate: A Court, Not a Super-Court

This is where the absurdity reaches peak velocity. MASADA wants a group of politicians—many of whom are not lawyers, many of whom are looking at 2028 polling data to decide their votes—to sanction a member of the Judiciary for exercising criminal jurisdiction.

If the Senate does this, the ghost of Juan Ponce Enrile will rise from his perpetual motion machine to strangle them with a copy of the Rules of Court. During the Corona trial, even Enrile understood that the impeachment court is not a “super court.” It has special jurisdiction: remove the official, yes. Dictate to the RTC, no.

The Supreme Court has exclusive administrative supervision over judges. That is Article VIII, Section 6. It is not a suggestion; it is a brick wall. If Senator Escudero issues a show-cause order against Judge de Ramos, he won’t just be wrong; he will be staging a coup against the separation of powers.

“Obstruction of Justice” is Not a Vibe

Presidential Decree No. 1829 (Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders) is the actual law on obstruction of justice. It requires willfully interfering with the criminal process—hiding suspects, destroying evidence, bribing witnesses.

Issuing a warrant advances the criminal process. It is the opposite of obstruction. It is the facilitation of justice.

Unless MASADA has evidence that Judge de Ramos filed the warrant with the specific, malicious intent to mess up the Senate’s hearing schedule, they are simply throwing around a felony term like a toddler throwing mashed potatoes. It’s messy, it’s noisy, and it has no nutritional value.

The Sorority: The Grain of Truth in a Silo of Stupidity

Let me be fair. Barok is nothing if not fair. There is a nugget of legitimate controversy here that MASADA, in its blindness, has walked right past: the fact that Judge de Ramos disclosed she was in the same San Beda law sorority as Sara Duterte.

Under Canon III of A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC (New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary) and Estrada v. Desierto, the question is whether a reasonable observer would question impartiality. Is sharing a Greek letter society a disqualifying conflict? No. I know people in my college fraternity I wouldn’t trust to feed my cat. But in the high-stakes theater of Philippine politics, the optics are rank. If the defense can prove a close, continuing relationship, they have a legitimate case for inhibition.

But do you know why MASADA isn’t focusing on that? Because a motion to inhibit is a mere technical hurdle. It doesn’t produce the political payoff of a “show-cause order.” The sorority angle might get the judge removed, but it won’t get the warrant recalled.

The “Collateral Damage” Argument

MASADA is effectively arguing that the “collateral damage” of the criminal case on the impeachment trial is too great. Yes, the timing is suspicious. Yes, the optics of arresting a sitting VP are horrendous. Yes, it fuels the “political persecution” narrative.

But so what? Since when does a court have to apologize for doing what the law requires because it might hurt a politician’s feelings or poll numbers? Judge de Ramos has a constitutional duty under Article III, Section 2 to personally determine probable cause. If she didn’t issue the warrant because she was afraid of the Senate, she would be guilty of gross neglect of duty.

The “Super-Political” Fantasy

Strip away the Latin and the posturing. This is what MASADA is really saying: “The Vice President is powerful enough that she should be exempt from the normal rules of criminal procedure while the Senate is in session.”

They want a unilateral ceasefire. They want the criminal courts to stand down while the political court fights it out. If we accept that logic, we might as well repeal Act No. 3815 (Revised Penal Code) for anyone with a senatorial ally. Imagine the precedent: a mayor caught stealing gets a friendly senator to file an impeachment complaint against the arresting judge, thereby invoking “parallel proceedings” and stalling the criminal case.

It is a legal terrorism tactic. It is using the veneer of constitutional law to shield a client from the consequences of her own violent rhetoric.

Verdict: Contempt for the Constitution

MASADA’s filing is not a legal document; it is a press release. It is designed to rally the Duterte base, to paint the “Babaeng Bato” as a martyr, and to intimidate the judiciary. It is an act of political theater performed on the grave of legal reason.

If Senator Escudero entertains this nonsense for even a moment, he should be disbarred. If the Senate issues a show-cause order against a trial court judge, the Supreme Court should shut down the impeachment trial and remand the Senators to a remedial course on “Separation of Powers 101.”

This is not obstruction of justice. This is the obstruction of logic. And in the Kweba ni Barok, we do not tolerate idiots destroying the Republic just because their candidate is losing.

The Vice President is not a queen. She is a public official. And public officials—especially those who joke about assassination—are not above the law. They are under it.

Key Citations

A. Legal & Official Sources

The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, 1987, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/.
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article III (Bill of Rights). Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-iii/.
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article VIII (Judicial Department). Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-viii/.
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers). Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-xi/.
Presidential Decree No. 1829. Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders. 16 Jan. 1981, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1981/01/16/presidential-decree-no-1829-s-1981/.
Presidential Decree No. 1829. Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders. 16 Jan. 1981, lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1981/pd_1829_1981.html.
Act No. 3815. An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws (Revised Penal Code). 8 Dec. 1930, lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html.
“New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.” Administrative Matter no. 03-05-01-SC, 27 Apr. 2004. eCodal+, http://www.ecodalplus.com/ecodals/legal-and-judicial-ethics/Code-of-Judicial-Conduct.
Estrada v. Desierto. G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 2 Mar. 2001, Supreme Court of the Philippines, lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/gr_146710_2001.html.
Rules of Court (Civil Procedure, Rules 1–71). Supreme Court of the Philippines, lawphil.net/courts/supreme/rc/civil.html.
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 110–127). Supreme Court of the Philippines, lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html.
“Resolution Adopting the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials.” Senate Resolution no. 39, 23 Mar. 2011. The Lawphil Project, Arellano Law Foundation, lawphil.net/congress/senate/r_39_2011.html.