FIVE THINGS TO KNOW…

Short explainers published throughout the day.

9:55 AM8-minute read

ABOUT EL NIÑO AND PREPARING FOR LESS RAIN

It can be raining outside while PAGASA warns about El Niño. That can sound confusing when the immediate problem is a wet road or a flooded field. The two warnings describe different periods: the weather happening now and the rainfall conditions that may develop over the coming months.

Read the explainer →
5:30 AM8-minute read

ABOUT THE NEW ARREST WARRANTS AGAINST ZALDY CO, MARTIN ROMUALDEZ AND TWO OTHERS

The Sandiganbayan has ordered the arrest of Zaldy Co, Martin Romualdez and two other accused in the plunder case filed on September 7. By Monday evening, authorities had served Romualdez's warrant and carried out booking procedures at Cardinal Santos Medical Center in San Juan. His arrest is a confirmed development; it does not establish that his three co-accused are also in custody.

Read the explainer →
Evening7-minute read

ABOUT AMICI CURIAE IN SARA DUTERTE'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

An amicus curiae is a person who helps a court understand a legal question. The Latin phrase means “friend of the court”; when there is more than one, they are called amici curiae. Their task is to offer informed advice. The people hearing the case remain responsible for the decision.

Read the explainer →
3:15 PM8-minute read

ABOUT THE PLUNDER CASE AGAINST MARTIN ROMUALDEZ

The Office of the Ombudsman filed a plunder case against former House Speaker Martin Romualdez at the Sandiganbayan on September 7 over his alleged involvement in flood-control kickbacks. The accusations have now reached the court that will handle the criminal case. Romualdez denies wrongdoing and remains presumed innocent.

Read the explainer →
1:18 PM7-minute read

ABOUT THE NEW SWS POVERTY NUMBERS

Self-rated poverty and food poverty declined in June, but the figures also show how many Filipino families remain under pressure and why lower household budgets do not necessarily mean life became cheaper.

Read the explainer →
2:02 PM11-minute read

ABOUT THE CHILDREN'S SOCIAL MEDIA SAFETY ACT

House Bill No. 9965 would bar children below 13 from having social media accounts, require parental consent for users aged 13 to 17, regulate platform algorithms, and impose fines reaching P50 million. It is still being deliberated in the House.

Read the explainer →
12:02 PM7-minute read

ABOUT THE SEALED BIR BOX

Marcos authorized the BIR to comply with the Senate subpoena. That did not open the records to the public or prove the unexplained-wealth allegation.

Read the explainer →

MCT READER PULSE · MCT-PULSE-2026-007

MCT READER SURVEY

House prosecutors are considering whether to stop presenting evidence on the bribery article against Vice President Sara Duterte and move directly to the unexplained-wealth charge. Do you agree with that strategy?Pinag-iisipan ng mga prosekutor ng Kamara kung ititigil ang paghaharap ng ebidensiya sa artikulo tungkol sa panunuhol at tututok sa kasong hindi maipaliwanag na yaman laban kay Bise Presidente Sara Duterte. Sang-ayon ka ba sa estratehiyang ito?

Some prosecutors want to move directly to the unexplained-wealth charge; others want to proceed with all four articles. No final decision had been announced when this survey opened. The question is about prosecution strategy, not guilt.

Background: The Philippine Star and Daily Tribune.

This is an informal survey of verified MCT readers who choose to participate. It is not nationally representative.

Open the shareable survey page →
View previous survey results →
Checking your reader session…

September 8, 2026 · Evening7-minute read

ABOUT AMICI CURIAE IN SARA DUTERTE'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

An amicus curiae is a person who helps a court understand a legal question. The Latin phrase means “friend of the court”; when there is more than one, they are called amici curiae. Their task is to offer informed advice. The people hearing the case remain responsible for the decision.

Senators Francis Escudero and Win Gatchalian at the September 7, 2026 impeachment hearing.
Joseph Vidal / Senate Social Media Unit Senate of the Philippines

The term came up at Sara Duterte's impeachment trial today because the Senate plans to invite legal experts to discuss the votes required for conviction. Retired Supreme Court justices are being considered. For anyone following the proceedings without a law degree, the useful questions are straightforward: why are these people being invited, what can they contribute, and how much authority do they actually have? Their appearance could help explain the voting dispute, but an invitation does not settle that dispute or decide Duterte's case.

1

A FRIEND OF THE COURT HELPS EXPLAIN THE LAW

Think of a court asking someone with relevant expertise to help it work through a difficult legal question. That is the role being discussed here. An amicus curiae can explain how a constitutional provision has been understood, identify relevant decisions and examine the consequences of competing interpretations.

The word “friend” describes assistance to the court. It does not mean a personal friend of a judge, a supporter recruited for one camp or someone given an extra vote. In this proceeding, the experts would contribute legal reasoning for the senator-judges to consider.

The role is recognised in Philippine legal practice. The professional rules for lawyers address requests to act as an amicus in proceedings related to their expertise. That helps explain why experience in constitutional law and previous judicial decisions can be useful when the question involves the Senate's voting requirement.

A reader does not need to accept an argument simply because it uses Latin or comes from a former justice. The explanation should still make sense: which legal text is being interpreted, what earlier decisions support the reading, and how those decisions apply to the present situation?

WHAT TO WATCH

Look for the specific questions sent to the invited experts. A clearly defined question will make it easier to judge whether their advice actually addresses the disagreement before the court.

2

THE INVITATION CONCERNS THE VOTES NEEDED FOR CONVICTION

The Constitution requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all Senate members to convict in an impeachment case. Presiding officer Francis Escudero has treated the full 24-member Senate as the basis, producing a requirement of 16 votes. Questions about absent members have brought that interpretation back into discussion.

At today's hearing, senator-judge Erwin Tulfo sought clarification about voting and members who are not attending. The planned consultation gives the court an opportunity to examine the legal arguments before it eventually counts votes on Duterte's case. Asking experts for advice does not itself reduce the requirement or change which votes may be accepted.

Senator-judge Pia Cayetano also questioned whether the impeachment court could revisit Escudero's earlier ruling. The disagreement therefore includes the authority to reconsider the rule. A senator missing a hearing does not, by that fact alone, establish a new constitutional formula.

For people following the evidence, a clear explanation of the counting rule is part of understanding the eventual result. Readers should be able to see which rule was applied and the court's reasons for applying it, whatever outcome they personally favour.

WHAT TO WATCH

Watch for an express ruling on the voting requirement after the consultation and arguments. Compare its actual wording with claims that the threshold has already changed; a proposal or expert opinion cannot establish that change on its own.

3

THE EXPERTS STILL HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED AND CONFIRMED

Escudero said names of retired Supreme Court justices had been discussed with the prosecution and defense. He did not announce them because they had not yet been contacted. A name circulating outside the court therefore should not be treated as a confirmed participant without an official announcement.

Senator-judge Francis Pangilinan proposed authorising the presiding officer to select the amici after consultation with the parties. Consulting both sides gives them a role in the selection discussion. It does not mean they have agreed in advance with everything an invited expert might say.

Experience can help the court assess a difficult constitutional question, but a distinguished career does not make every interpretation beyond dispute. The public can examine the person's relevant expertise and, once advice is given, the reasoning supporting it. Agreement with one party on a particular point would not by itself show that the adviser had become that party's lawyer.

This is also why announcing a list before invitations are accepted can mislead readers. Being considered, being invited and agreeing to appear are different stages. The September 8 announcement had not publicly completed that sequence for named individuals.

WHAT TO WATCH

Watch for the confirmed names, their acceptance and the scope of their invitations. Those details will show who is actually taking part and which legal questions each person is being asked to address.

4

THEIR ADVICE DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE OR A SENATE DECISION

The invited experts are being asked about a legal issue concerning the voting requirement. Their interpretation cannot, on its own, establish what happened to confidential funds or whether any allegation against Duterte has been proved. Those questions depend on the evidence presented in the case and the court's assessment of it.

The Constitution assigns the Senate the power to try and decide impeachment cases. An adviser does not acquire that power by accepting an invitation. Even a retired Supreme Court justice appearing in this role would be giving advice, rather than delivering a Supreme Court judgment on the trial.

The court is not bound to adopt an amicus's view. It may find the reasoning helpful, accept parts of it or reach a different interpretation. Advice may also favour an argument advanced by the prosecution or defense without amounting to a decision for that side.

For readers, the speaker's role is worth keeping beside the quotation. “An expert argued” and “the court ruled” describe different events. Removing that difference from a short post can make a discussion sound like a legal result that has not happened.

WHAT TO WATCH

After the experts speak, look for the court's own action. Its ruling should establish what it accepted and decided; the strongest quotation from an adviser is not a substitute for that record.

5

SEPTEMBER 16 AND SEPTEMBER 23 HAVE DIFFERENT PURPOSES

Escudero tentatively set September 16 for the appearance of the amici curiae, subject to their availability. September 23 is intended for oral arguments by the prosecution and defense on the voting issue. Oral arguments allow the lawyers to explain their legal positions and answer questions from the court.

The sequence gives the senator-judges expert advice and the parties' competing arguments before resolving the dispute. The announced plan also contemplates action on the voting question after the arguments. As with other hearing schedules, subsequent court announcements should be checked for changes.

Neither date should be advertised as the day Duterte will necessarily be convicted or acquitted. A ruling on how to count the deciding votes addresses the rules for the case. It does not establish what the evidence proves about the impeachment allegations.

For someone who can follow only selected hearings, knowing the purpose of each sitting helps. The September 16 discussion should explain the experts' legal readings; the September 23 arguments should show how the parties answer the issue. The court's eventual ruling must then be read separately from either presentation.

WHAT TO WATCH

Check the confirmed hearing notices for September 16 and 23, then any resulting ruling. An announcement about the timetable should identify whether the court is hearing advice, hearing arguments or issuing a decision, so readers can follow what each sitting accomplished.

BOTTOM LINE

An amicus curiae helps a court reason through a legal question. In Duterte's impeachment trial, the proposed advisers are being brought into the discussion about the votes needed for conviction. Their names, arguments and experience deserve scrutiny, while the responsibility for deciding the case remains with the Senate. The clearest way to follow the coming hearings is to keep three things separate: the experts' advice, the parties' arguments and the court's ruling. That allows readers to assess what actually changed without mistaking an invitation or a persuasive opinion for a verdict.

GOOGLE PREFERRED SOURCES

FOLLOW MCT ON GOOGLE

Google’s Preferred Sources feature lets you choose publications you want Google to prioritize for you. Select “Add to Preferred Sources” to make MCT easier to find in Top Stories and other eligible Google results. This does not subscribe you to email.

← Back to MCT home

LATEST COMMENTARY

View all commentary →

SUPPORT MCT

HELP KEEP INDEPENDENT POLITICAL WRITING GOING.

Morning Coffee Thoughts is reader-supported. Contributions help pay for research tools, hosting, and the work required to verify and explain each development.

Choose the monthly support amount you are comfortable with.Continue through PayPal
Send support through GCash or Maya0969 314 4839