The Supreme Court Impeachment Ruling That Protected Power, Not Justice

I wasn’t planning to write a Morning Coffee Thoughts entry today.

But this morning, I’m making an exception.

Maybe it’s the rain. Or the photos I keep seeing—streets turned into rivers, parents carrying children through floodwater, rescue boats in places that should’ve had working drainage. We’re here, again, in the middle of another disaster. And still no sign of that fully funded flood control plan we were told about in the budget.

At the same time, I’m reading the Supreme Court’s decision that blocked the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. And I can’t lie—it feels like a gut punch. Not because I expected a conviction. Not because I thought the process would be clean. But because it didn’t even get to start.

And in my view, that’s not just a legal ruling.

It’s a betrayal.

While the country drowns—literally and figuratively—the highest court just gave a powerful official a way out. And the timing couldn’t be worse. We’re not just talking about confidential funds here. We’re talking about a serious set of charges: graft, bribery, betrayal of public trust, and even a threat to assassinate the sitting president.

But none of it will be heard.

At least not now. Not until February next year when another impeachment complaint might be allowed.

Meanwhile, whispers are growing louder about Sandro Marcos being positioned as Majority Leader. Another son of another president, getting ready to pull strings inside a chamber that’s supposed to check power, not babysit it.

So yes, I feel conflicted writing about this while the rest of the country is trying to survive the floods. But I also know we can’t afford to stay silent. Corruption doesn’t stop during a storm. And if anything, decisions like this one from the Supreme Court are the reason why we’re always stuck in the same cycle.

The cycle of money lost, truth avoided, and public trust eroded.

And if you’re a Duterte supporter already starting to squirm and itching to hurl insults in the comment section—remember: this is a personal reflection.

You don’t have to agree.

But at least read to the end.

What the Supreme Court Really Said—And What It Shut Down

On July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 13–0–2 ruling that blocked the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

The reason? Technical grounds. They cited the one-year rule and claimed due process wasn’t followed.

But for many of us watching, it didn’t feel like a procedural correction.

It felt like a shield.

The ruling came at a time when serious allegations had already been acknowledged by the House justice committee. The process was moving. Witnesses were ready. The public had questions. And instead of a trial, we got a dead end.

Now, none of those questions will be answered in a public forum. Not this year. Not in front of senators. Not with full transparency.

The earliest we might revisit this? February 2026.

So once again, we wait.

But this is what impunity looks like—it doesn’t always come with fireworks or fanfare. Sometimes it arrives quietly, in the form of a unanimous vote, signed by people in robes who know the system better than anyone.

And sometimes, that silence is louder than guilt.

The Composition of the Supreme Court: Duterte’s Enduring Influence

If we want to understand why this ruling matters, we have to look at who made it.

By 2025, Rodrigo Duterte had appointed between 11 to 13 out of 15 justices on the Supreme Court during his time in office. That includes multiple Chief Justices, one of whom—Alexander Gesmundo—still leads the Court today.

It’s the kind of influence that doesn’t fade after a term ends. It lingers.

And in high-stakes cases involving the Duterte family, that level of control doesn’t just raise eyebrows—it raises real questions.

Even if the Court followed procedure, even if the justices say the ruling was purely legal, it’s hard to ignore who put them there. That kind of concentration of appointments creates a structural conflict of interest—not just in theory, but in how the public sees it.

Because when a majority of justices owe their seats to the father of the official being protected, who can blame people for thinking the outcome was already decided?

This is the consequence of institutional capture. And now we’re watching it play out, one blocked case at a time.

The Cost of Letting Corruption Win

Corruption bleeds this country dry.

Each year, we lose ₱1.6 trillion to it at the national level. Include what gets lost to local bribery and padded contracts, and the total reaches ₱2.2 trillion.

That money was meant for something else.

It could’ve gone to fixing drainage before the floods came. To making sure teachers don’t have to buy their own chalk. To making healthcare actually accessible beyond big cities. But it didn’t. It disappeared into the same system that keeps letting powerful people off the hook.

Economists have said it plainly: if we had the discipline of a country like Singapore, our investment rates would be higher. Our economy could grow 2% more every year. But we don’t even come close. Because our system makes it easy to steal, and hard to hold anyone accountable.

And when public officials know the courts will cover for them, they stop pretending they care about the consequences.

They overspend, they underdeliver, and nobody pays for it.

We all just carry the bill.

Weakening the Very Tools That Should Keep Power in Check

It’s not just the courts.

You can’t look at this decision in isolation. It fits into a longer pattern—one where the institutions meant to guard against abuse are slowly being hollowed out.

Transparency International ranks the Philippines 114th out of 180 countries in its latest Corruption Perceptions Index. We scored 33 out of 100—well below the global average of 43. Back in 2018, we were ranked 99th. The slide didn’t happen by accident.

This decline overlaps with the years when Duterte’s influence over the judiciary grew. One appointment after another. One blocked case after another. And behind it all, the quiet dismantling of checks and balances.

It’s not just rankings on a chart.

The deeper problem is that almost 80% of Congress and over 50% of local elected officials come from political families. Dynasties that pass on positions like family businesses. They hold the power, they hoard the budget, and they rarely get questioned—because the people who are supposed to hold them accountable are part of the same system.

It shows.

New business creation is slow. Inequality keeps growing. And the idea of reform starts to feel like a campaign line, not a real possibility.

The system isn’t broken.

It’s protected.

What Our Neighbors Got Right

While we stall, other countries in the region are showing what accountability can actually look like.

Malaysia had every reason to sweep things under the rug. The 1MDB scandal involved around US$4.5 billion in stolen funds, and the Prime Minister at the center of it—Najib Razak—was once thought untouchable. He denied everything. Bought time. Used every trick in the book.

But it didn’t hold.

After he lost the 2018 election, the new government reopened the investigation. Najib was convicted on seven charges related to a subsidiary of 1MDB. He’s now serving 12 years in prison and was fined RM210 million. His wife, Rosmah Mansor, was also sentenced to 10 years for corruption.

They were taken down not by a coup, but by a working legal system. Prosecutors did their jobs. The courts didn’t flinch. And the public saw that even the most powerful could be held accountable.

Thailand took a different route. There, the private sector stepped in where government couldn’t. Businesses formed a collective action coalition against corruption, creating integrity pacts and certification systems. It wasn’t perfect, but it showed how pressure can come from below when institutions fail from above.

Indonesia managed slow but steady progress too. Between 2014 and 2019, their corruption score went up by six points. Ours dropped. The difference? Their Corruption Eradication Commission actually investigates, and they’ve been improving the laws to keep it that way.

These countries don’t have spotless records.

But they’ve moved forward. We haven’t.

Not because Filipinos are incapable of change—but because our institutions are built to resist it.

The Sandiganbayan: All the Forms, None of the Fight

The Sandiganbayan was supposed to be the solution. A special court created to deal with corruption cases involving high-ranking officials. That was the promise.

But decades later, it’s hard to see it as anything more than a holding area where cases go to die.

Since 1979, the Sandiganbayan has handled thousands of cases. But only 17 politicians have actually been convicted. And even then, the number of high-profile names on that list is embarrassingly small.

In 2013, 504 candidates ran for office despite having pending cases with the Sandiganbayan. Out of those, 256 won. Nineteen of them didn’t even have opponents.

Accountability was never the point.

Cases get dismissed. Prosecutors withdraw. Witnesses disappear. The files sit, the hearings stretch out for years, and by the time the public remembers—if they ever do—the official is already back in power.

In 2023, the Sandiganbayan’s disbursement rate was only 89.6%, which means even the basic resources needed to move cases forward aren’t fully used. And the accused? Most of them walk into court with better lawyers, better connections, and no real fear.

What we’re left with is a system that looks like it works—on paper. But in practice, it protects those who know how to play the game.

When Institutions Stop Checking Each Other

In any working democracy, branches of government are supposed to keep each other honest.

But that only works if they’re willing to act.

The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t just shut down a trial—it exposed how weak our internal systems of accountability have become. What political scientists call horizontal accountability—the ability of state institutions to check each other—barely exists anymore.

Instead of balance, we get silence.

Former Senator Leila de Lima called the decision “procedurally questionable.” She pointed out that the House—the main party involved—wasn’t even given a chance to file a formal comment before the ruling came out.

Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno said it plainly: “The people, the fight for accountability, lost.”

Even House spokesperson Princess Abante—from the same chamber the Court supposedly protected—warned that the ruling undermines the principle of checks and balances. Because what the Court just did was interfere in the very first step of the impeachment process.

Instead of letting the legislative branch do its job, it cut the process short. As if to say: you don’t get to ask that question.

The Court didn’t stay neutral. It stepped in just long enough to stop the process before it could even begin.

It weakened the one tool we still had to hold her accountable.

The Powers the Court Refuses to Use

According to my research, the 1987 Constitution gave the Supreme Court powers that go beyond settling legal disputes.

Article VIII, Section 1 says:

“The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”

This clause is the reason the Court was able to step in and block Sara Duterte’s impeachment. Her legal team filed a petition for certiorari, invoking grave abuse of discretion—and the Court granted it.

So yes, they exercised this constitutional power. But the way they used it raises more questions than it answers.

They acted swiftly. Unanimously. And the result was to shield someone in power from facing a public trial. Whether intended or not, the effect is the same: the process ends, and the public never hears the full story.

That ruling didn’t just stop the case. It gave her time—time for outrage to fade, time for political momentum to cool, time for people to forget. The next complaint can’t be filed until 2026. By then, the headlines will have changed. That’s how this system works.

And this isn’t the only tool the Court has.

Article VIII, Section 5(5) gives them exclusive rule-making authority. Here’s what it says:

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.

Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases…

They’ve used this power before. That’s how we got the writ of amparo and writ of habeas data—to protect victims of human rights abuses. They also wrote special procedures for environmental cases, like the writ of kalikasan.

So why haven’t they done the same for corruption?

Why no fast-track process for public fund abuse?

Why no clear standard for how much discretion is too much when dealing with confidential budgets?

Why do we only see urgency when it’s someone powerful trying to stop a case—not when it’s the public demanding answers?

The tools are there. They’re written in the Constitution. The Court knows how to use them.

And maybe that’s what makes this so difficult to accept—not that the Court failed to act, but that it acted exactly as it was designed to.

Just not for us.

The Ombudsman’s Parallel Investigation: A Test We’re Still Waiting On

While the Supreme Court blocked the impeachment, there was still one process that appeared to be moving—at least on the surface.

On June 19, 2025, Ombudsman Samuel Martires ordered Sara Duterte and several subordinates to respond to allegations of confidential fund misuse, based on the House committee report. They were given ten days to reply. Sara submitted her counter-affidavit on June 27.

But even then, I wasn’t holding my breath.

Martires is a Duterte appointee, placed in office back in 2018 after briefly serving as a Supreme Court justice. He’s also a San Beda fraternity brother of Rodrigo Duterte—Lex Talionis Fraternitas, to be exact. And on record, he’s consistently cleared Duterte of wrongdoing.

As early as 2011, when he was with the Sandiganbayan, Martires dismissed graft charges against then-Mayor Duterte. As Ombudsman, he found “no evidence” linking Duterte to the Pharmally scandal in 2023. Multiple complaints during his term were either dismissed or quietly shelved.

He also made moves that raised more red flags than reassurance. He dismissed Overall Deputy Ombudsman Arthur Carandang, the same official who investigated the Duterte family’s bank accounts. Then he restricted public access to SALNs, tried to criminalize journalists who report on wealth disclosures, and abolished lifestyle checks—calling them “illogical.”

So when people ask me whether this new investigation might lead somewhere, I think back to all of that.

If this were still Conchita Carpio Morales or Arthur Carandang running the show? Maybe I’d feel differently. Carpio Morales stood her ground even when Duterte tried to suspend Carandang. Carandang, for his part, dared to investigate the President's family despite enormous pressure. That kind of institutional backbone is rare. And it’s not what we’ve seen under Martires.

To be fair, Martires did say something technically correct: his office can’t prosecute an impeachable official unless there's a conviction in an impeachment court. So by law, he’s limited.

But given his track record, that technicality feels less like a constraint and more like a convenient shield.

And now, he’s about to retire—just days from now. Whether this case moves forward or quietly fades will depend on who takes his place.

So yes, the investigation is open. Yes, there are affidavits. But whether anything meaningful happens?

I’m not expecting much.

How the World Sees Us Now

The world has been paying attention.

Back in 2018, a UN human rights expert—Diego García-Sayán—warned that President Duterte’s attacks on then-Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno were a serious threat to judicial independence. A few months later, she was removed from office. Not by impeachment, but through a quo warranto petition—a legal maneuver many lawyers said was a dangerous shortcut.

It sent a message. Even the Chief Justice wasn’t safe from political pressure.

That moment didn’t just damage the Court—it shook the region. It showed how easy it was to bend institutions when one family, one name, starts treating government like personal property.

Researchers now call this kind of system competitive authoritarianism. You still have elections. There are courts, media, watchdog groups. On paper, the structure of democracy is there. But the real power lies with incumbents who rig the system from within.

And when you look at how the Philippines has changed over the past decade, it fits.

• More militarization in civilian agencies.

• More trolls.

• More disinformation.

• Fewer safe spaces for journalists, critics, even teachers.

It’s not always loud. Sometimes the destruction is quiet—done through budget cuts, legal threats, and silence from the people who are supposed to stand up.

According to Asian Barometer data, less than 25% of Filipinos prefer democracy over authoritarian alternatives. The demand for accountability is shrinking. Authoritarianism isn’t just tolerated—it’s becoming familiar.

And that might be the scariest part.

Because when a country stops asking questions, the ones in power stop giving answers. And before long, the damage becomes normal.

The Marcos Administration’s Response: Calculated Silence or Something Else?

When the Supreme Court ruling came out, the Palace released a short, safe statement.

“We respect the decision of the Supreme Court,” it said. “Let’s trust our institutions.”

That was it.

No mention of the impeachment. No comment on the allegations. No signal to the public that corruption would be taken seriously—even if the process was halted on procedural grounds.

This isn’t new.

Marcos Jr. has always walked a tightrope with the Dutertes. He’s distanced himself from Rodrigo Duterte, especially after the ICC investigation and those public threats. But when it comes to Sara? The approach is quieter. Less confrontation. More caution.

And maybe that’s the point.

Rodrigo Duterte no longer poses a threat. But Sara might—especially if she runs in 2028.

So the silence isn’t just about “respecting the courts.” It might be strategic. Let the Court block the trial. Let the news cycle die down. Don’t stir public sympathy by appearing too aggressive.

But silence, too, is a decision.

Because while institutions rot in plain view, and while billions in confidential funds remain unexplained, the President who promised a "Bagong Pilipinas" has nothing to say.

And in politics, saying nothing is often the loudest thing you can do.

What Could Be Fixed—But Won’t Be

None of these problems are new.

And the solutions? They're not hidden. They're not complicated. They're not even controversial.

But they threaten the people who built this system—and who keep it broken because it works for them.

This isn’t a matter of political will. It’s a matter of political survival.

Still, it’s worth saying clearly what needs to change. Not because the people in power will act on it—but because we need to remember what they keep choosing not to do.

1. Reform the way justices are appointed.
No single president should be able to stack almost the entire Supreme Court. There needs to be more transparency, more checks in the vetting process, and more limits on how much one administration can control the judiciary.

2. Pass the Anti-Dynasty Law the Constitution has been waiting for.
Congress has stalled this for 38 years. At this point, it’s not just neglect—it’s willful protection of political families. The law doesn’t need to be perfect. It just needs to exist.

3. Strengthen the Office of the Ombudsman.
The next Ombudsman should not be someone placed there to protect their former boss. We need a fixed term with real safeguards against political influence—and a rule that disqualifies any nominee with prior ties to the sitting president or vice president.

4. Protect media and civil society.
Journalists shouldn’t need to risk jail just to ask questions. NGOs shouldn’t have to choose between doing their work and staying off a government watchlist. Lift the restrictions. Let them work.

5. Fix the Sandiganbayan.
If it rarely convicts, if cases take seven years, if no high-ranking official ever fears it—then it’s broken. Speed up the process. Increase funding. Appoint judges who understand urgency and pressure.

6. Use the Supreme Court’s rule-making power for corruption cases.
They’ve created writs for human rights and the environment. So why not corruption? They could issue new procedures today—streamlined processes, stricter deadlines, clear standards. But they haven’t. And that says everything.

7. Pressure has to come from outside the halls of power.
Independent media, civil society, academic institutions—these are the voices that still have room to push. If those inside government won’t demand reform, it has to come from people who aren’t protecting a seat in 2028.

These aren't policy ideas. They're acts of self-preservation the system has refused to take.

And that refusal is the clearest proof that reform isn’t just unlikely.

It’s unwelcome.

Where This Could Go

With institutions weakened, courts choosing silence, and civil society forced to fight with one hand tied, the space for accountability keeps shrinking.

So what happens now?

If this is how the system responds to one of the biggest corruption complaints in recent memory—by protecting the powerful and sidelining public pressure—then we need to ask what kind of future that sets up.

Because if nothing changes, this isn’t just about one case.

It’s a sign of where we’re headed.

1. Dynasty Consolidation

This is the most likely path. The system doesn’t just protect dynasties—it runs on them.

Sara Duterte could still run for president in 2028. The impeachment is dead. The legal baggage is stalled. The family network remains strong.

Congress still won’t pass an anti-dynasty law. The Supreme Court still won’t compel them to. And the public? Many are too tired or too afraid to fight dynasties head-on. The money, the machinery, and the silence are all working in their favor.

The cost? Stagnant growth. Wasted budgets. Corruption normalized as strategy. Another decade of people adjusting to less.

2. Reform—But Only After a Breakdown

Sometimes, real change only comes when things fall apart. If a bigger scandal hits, or if a whistleblower finally breaks through, or if international pressure piles up—we might see a shift.

But it’ll take a spark. Civil society would need to wake up in numbers. A real accountability push would have to happen. And it won’t come from the top.

There’s a chance. But it depends on people paying attention even when it’s not trending.

3. Cosmetic Reforms, Same Power Holders

The safest bet for the people in charge: small gestures that look like progress but keep the same players in place.

A few high-profile firings. New transparency websites. Maybe a Commission.

But underneath? The same families. The same contracts. The same rules.

Nothing really changes—except the messaging.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court Didn't Just Kill the Case—It Protected the System That Needs to Stay Broken

This wasn’t just a ruling.

It was a signal to the rest of us: don’t expect too much from the system when the accused holds real power.

The Supreme Court didn’t rule on the truth of the allegations. It didn’t weigh evidence. It didn’t allow the country to see how deep the damage goes. It used procedure to shut the door.

And in doing that, it reminded everyone who’s really safe in this country—and who isn’t.

Because when justices are appointed by the same families they might be asked to judge, when the Ombudsman protects instead of investigates, when corruption cases take a decade and end in nothing, and when institutions are praised for “stability” while everything underneath rots—what are we really clinging to?

We don’t just have a corruption problem. We have a protection problem.

And the worst part? That protection is built into every corner of the system.

The only accountability that happens here is the kind that’s delayed, redirected, or buried. Until people forget. Until it’s too late. Until the next election comes and the same names return—cleansed by time, rebranded by machinery, untouched by consequence.

What the Supreme Court killed wasn’t just one case against Sara Duterte.

It killed the chance to show the country that powerful people can be questioned out loud, in public, under oath.

It killed the momentum.

It killed the pressure.

And in the silence that followed, you can almost hear the system breathing easy again.

SOURCES:

1. Supreme Court E-Library - https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/17/67550

2. The Shifting Acts of Politics Beneath the Philippine Supreme Court's Public Advocacy - https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/2025-posts/2025/3/11/the-shifting-acts-of-politics-beneath-the-philippine-supreme-courts-public-advocacy

3. UP Institute of Government and Law Reform Colloquium - https://law.upd.edu.ph/event-report-colloquium-on-the-2018-draft-federal-constitution-with-the-up-institute-of-government-and-law-reform/

4. Collective Action Against Corruption (PDF) - https://www.asean-csr-network.org/c/images/AIMPublication-CollectiveActionAgainstCorruptionRVR-CVStarr-1.pdf

5. Democratic Backsliding in the Philippines - https://democratic-erosion.org/2025/02/14/democratic-backsliding-in-the-philippines/

6. Constitutional Judiciary Legal Analysis (PDF) - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4599853_code3347255.pdf?abstractid=4599853&mirid=1

7. Basel Institute Business Integrity Report (PDF) - https://baselgovernance.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/231120_W025 Philippine Midterm Elections Analysis** - https://th.boell.org/en/2025/05/10/2025-philippine-midterm-elections

8. Global Expansion of Constitutional Judicial Review (PDF) - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2232612_code1617212.pdf?abstractid=2210340&mirid=1

9. Corruption in ASEAN Report (PDF) - https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/kproducts/Corruption-in-ASEAN-2020_GCB-launch.pdf

10. Democratic Backsliding Research (PDF) - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/5031235.pdf?abstractid=5031235&mirid=1

11. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Bar Review - https://www.respicio.ph/bar/2025/tag/JUDICIAL+DEPARTMENT

12. Anti-Corruption Agencies Comparative Analysis (PDF) - https://ipmr.net/index.php/ipmr/article/download/34/34/67

13. Philippines: From 'People Power' to Democratic Backsliding - https://www.populismstudies.org/the-philippines-from-people-power-to-democratic-backsliding/

14. Judicialized Governance and Populist Democracy (PDF) - https://cids.up.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Judicialized-Governance-and-Populist-Democracy-vol.12-13-2014-2015-2.pdf

15. Comparing Anti-corruption Measures in Asian Countries (PDF) - http://www.anti-corruption.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Asia-Comparing-anti-corruption-experiences-in-Asia-lessons-John-Quah-1999.pdf

16. In the Philippines, Civil Society Grows Amid Democratic Backsliding - https://thediplomat.com/2022/05/in-the-philippines-civil-society-grows-amid-democratic-backsliding/

17. Judicial review | Definition, Forms, & Facts | Britannica - https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-review

18. Rodrigo Duterte - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Duterte

19. 7-member Duterte bloc backs Escudero for SP - https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/07/10/2456867/7-member-duterte-bloc-backs-escudero-sp

20. VP Duterte unveils 7-point priority intervention - https://www.deped.gov.ph/2023/05/26/vp-duterte-unveils-7-point-priority-intervention-of-deped-in-support-of-matatag-agenda/

21. Seven days of Duterte - https://eastasiaforum.org/2016/07/07/seven-days-of-duterte/

22. How a Philippine Court Handed Duterte Family Another Victory - https://time.com/7305463/philippines-impeachment-sara-duterte-supreme-court/

23. Dela Rosa: 7 Duterte bloc senators back Escudero - https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/952017/dela-rosa-7-duterte-bloc-senators-back-escudero-as-senate-president/story/

24. Sara Duterte - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Duterte

25. Rodrigo Duterte's August 7, 2016, speech - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Duterte's_August_7,_2016,_speech

26. Senators back starting Duterte trial Aug. 4 - https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2083077/senators-back-starting-duterte-trial-aug-4-a-week-after-marcos-sona

27. Rodrigo Duterte | Facts, Biography - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rodrigo-Duterte

28. President Duterte spells out priority legislations - https://pco.gov.ph/news_releases/president-duterte-spells-out-priority-legislations-in-third-sona/

29. DuterTen - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuterTen

30. Duterte | International Criminal Court - https://www.icc-cpi.int/philippines/duterte

31. Duterte allies, Senate siblings emerge as majority - https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/7/8/duterte-opposition-blocs-senate-siblings-emerge-as-majority-under-escudero-ejercito-1617

32. The Philippine President - https://romepe.dfa.gov.ph/about-the-philippines/the-president

33. Pro-Duterte movement to campaign for 7 senatoriables - https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1062237

34. 7 Duterte-Aligned Senators Back Escudero - https://rapidnewsonline.com/7-duterte-aligned-senators-back-escudero-for-senate-president-dela-rosa/

35. Impeachment probe of Philippine VP Sara Duterte voided - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/25/impeachment-probe-of-philippine-vp-sara-duterte-voided-by-supreme-court

36. Rodrigo Duterte: Latest News and Updates - https://www.scmp.com/topics/rodrigo-duterte

37. About Us – Supreme Court of the Philippines - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/about-the-supreme-court-of-the-philippines/

38. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT - ARTICLE VIII - https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/45/11448

39. 1987 Philippine Constitution - The LawPhil Project - https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html

40. 1987 Constitution - https://www.set.gov.ph/resources/philippine-constitutions/1987-constitution/

41. Supreme Court Jurisdiction Analysis - https://www.respicio.ph/bar/2025/tag/Supreme+Court

42. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court - https://www.respicio.ph/bar/2025/remedial-law-legal-ethics-legal-forms/general-principles/rule-making-power-of-the-supreme-court

43. Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases - https://www.respicio.ph/bar/2025/tag/Rules+of+Procedure+for+Environmental+Cases+AM+No+09-6-8-SC

44. Judicial Review Analysis - https://www.respicio.ph/bar/2025/political-law-and-public-international-law/judicial-department/judicial-review

45. The Supreme Court of the Philippines - Members | AACC - https://aacc-asia.org/en/11/2/members.aacc

46. SC Grants Writs of Amparo, Habeas Data - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-grants-writs-of-amparo-habeas-data-in-favor-of-environmental-advocates/

47. Supreme Court power on judicial review research - https://repository.cpu.edu.ph/handle/20.500.12852/191

48. Rule-making power analysis - https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/23/63345

49. Environmental Case Supreme Court Decision (PDF) - https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2017/20170307_17425_judgment.pdf

50. Philippine Constitution Text (PDF) - https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/Philippines/PHILIPPINE%20CONSTITUTION.pdf

51. Rule-making power detailed analysis - https://legalresource.ph/rule-making-power-of-the-supreme-court/

52. Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Annotation (PDF) - https://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/learning_materials/A.m.No.09-6-8-SC_annotation.pdf

53. Political Question Doctrine Analysis - https://www.coa.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/ABC-Help/Jurisprudence_B/MBPQD.htm

54. Article 8 Section 5-7 Analysis - https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/article-8-section-5-7/2449863

55. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/the-rule-on-the-writ-of-amparo/

56. Art. 8, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution - https://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/

57. GR No. 278353 Supreme Court Decision (PDF) - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/278353-HERNANDO.pdf

58. Reply Supreme Court Filing (PDF) - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Reply-278359.pdf

59. Philippines top court throws out impeachment - https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/philippines-top-court-throws-out-impeachment-complaint-against-vp-duterte-2025-07-25/

60. House impeachment complaint barred by 1-year rule - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-house-impeachment-complaint-vs-vp-duterte-barred-by-1-year-rule-due-process-or-fairness-applies-during-all-stages-of-impeachment-process/

61. Legal experts split on SC's detailed order - https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2082149/legal-experts-split-on-scs-detailed-order-in-sara-duterte-case-2

62. Specialised anti-corruption courts Philippines (PDF) - https://www.u4.no/publications/specialised-anti-corruption-courts-philippines.pdf

63. Amparo and habeas data in the Philippines - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amparo_and_habeas_data_in_the_Philippines

64. VP impeachment 'grave abuse of discretion' - https://tribune.net.ph/2025/07/24/vp-impeachment-grave-abuse-of-discretion

65. Philippines DOJ prosecution analysis (PDF) - https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/GG14/19_GG14_CP9_Philippines.pdf

66. Supreme Court Decision 269249 (PDF) - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/269249.pdf

67. Supreme Court Decision 278353-INTING (PDF) - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/278353-INTING.pdf

68. Procedural reforms in judiciary (PDF) - https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/helpdesk/Procedural-reforms-in-the-judiciary-2017.pdf

69. Writ of Habeas Data Analysis - https://www.respicio.ph/bar/2025/remedial-law-legal-ethics-legal-forms/special-proceedings/writ-of-habeas-data-am-no-08-1-16-sc

70. Escudero, Azcuna: No overreach in SC review - https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/7/24/escudero-azcuna-no-overreach-in-sc-review-of-sara-duterte-impeachment-2302

71. SC Provides Additional Channel for Judicial Corruption Complaints - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-provides-additional-channel-for-judicial-corruption-complaints/

72. SC Impeachment complaint unconstitutional video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVSu3n8pddY

73. Supreme Court corruption investigation - https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64003

74. Rule on Writ of Habeas Data - https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/am_08_1_16_sc_2008a.html

75. Pursuing Swift Administration of Justice (PDF) - https://pdp.depdev.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/06-04-07-2017.pdf

77. Ombudsman Martires basis of charges - https://mb.com.ph/2025/06/21/ombudsman-martires-basis-of-charges-vs-vp-duterte-9-other-officials-is-house-committee-report-probe-to-proceed

78. Ombudsman to await result of VP Sara impeachment - https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/950794/ombudsman-we-re-not-grabbing-congress-power-to-impeach/story/

79. Ombudsman did NOT convict Sara - https://www.tsek.ph/ombudsman-did-not-convict-sara-over-alleged-fund-misuse/

80. Ombudsman's hands tied on graft raps - https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/6/27/ombudsman-s-hands-tied-on-graft-raps-house-recommended-vs-vp-duterte-1912

81. Ombudsman: Sara Duterte must answer charges - https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2073041/ombudsman-sara-duterte-must-answer-house-corruption-charges

82. Martires is new Ombudsman - https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1042835

83. The President is not above the law - https://opinion.inquirer.net/115117/president-not-law

84. VP Sara answers alleged fund misuse - https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/950780/vp-sara-answers-alleged-fund-misuse-before-ombudsman/story/

85. Samuel Martires named new ombudsman - https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/07/27/1837210/samuel-martires-named-new-ombudsman

86. Ombudsman: Preventive suspension affront to SC - https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1023627

87. Ombudsman did NOT convict Sara fact-check - https://verafiles.org/articles/fact-check-ombudsman-did-not-convict-sara-over-alleged-fund-misuse

88. Samuel Martires - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Martires

89. The sacking of Melchor Arthur Carandang - https://verafiles.org/articles/the-sacking-of-melchor-arthur-carandang

90. Ombudsman Martires OMB has to wait for Senate trial - https://mb.com.ph/2025/06/27/ombudsman-martires-omb-has-to-wait-for-result-of-senate-trial-on-vp-saras-impeachment-case

91. People are watching Rep. Castro warns Ombudsman - https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2073301/people-are-watching-rep-castro-warns-ombudsman-on-vp-case

92. Ombudsman probes Duterte family's wealth - https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/933676/ombudsman-probes-duterte-familys-wealth

93. Present Ombudsman - https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/about-us/present-ombudsman/

94. Supreme Court case G.R. No. 232131 - https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64156

95. Office of the Ombudsman Philippines - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Ombudsman_(Philippines)

96. Ombudsman Term Performance Report (PDF) - https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/docs/08%20Resources/TPR/Ombudsman%20Term%20Performance%20Report%20Vol.1%20(2011-2018).pdf

97. JBC opens application for Ombudsman post - https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1250455

98. Retiring ombudsman singled out Wick Veloso - https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2025/07/26/2460733/retiring-ombudsmansingled-out-wick-veloso

99. House prosecutors welcome Ombudsman stand - https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/950846/house-prosecutors-welcome-ombudsman-wait-sara-duterte-impeachment-trial-result/story/

100. Group questions Martires' independence - https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/07/27/1837285/group-questions-martires-independence-new-ombudsman

101. The man who dared - https://opinion.inquirer.net/122356/the-man-who-dared

102. Next Ombudsman must be fair, courageous - https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1253788

103. Ombudsman Martires clarifies role - https://dzrh.com.ph/post/we-cannot-prosecute-ombudsman-martires-clarifies-role-in-vp-sara-duterte-impeachment-case

104. JBC opens application as Martires nears retirement - https://abogado.com.ph/jbc-opens-application-for-ombudsman-post-as-martires-nears-retirement/

105. Ombudsman Martires unusual swift video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vHQOuvHcDo

106. Statement of Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires - https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/statement-of-ombudsman-samuel-r-martires/

107. Key Officials Ombudsman - https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/key-officials-2/

108. No evidence Duterte involved in Pharmally - https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/09/11/23/ombudsman-explains-why-duterte-was-cleared-in-pharmally-mess

109. Duterte lapdog? Ombudsman maintains neutrality - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MLT6OSmyL4

110. Corruption investigation Supreme Court - https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64003