PROLOGUE: THE STORM WITHIN THE LAW

In the history of Philippine politics, the word “Impeachment” is like a thunderbolt that heralds a powerful storm. It is the highest form of trial—a process in which the country’s own elected leader can be removed from office by the people’s representatives.

In recent days, this word has been circulating again. But this time, the target is none other than the President of the Republic, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM) .

Congress, once the bastion of the administration, seems to be turning into the stage for a political teleserye. The question of the people is: Is this real or just a show?

To shed light on the complex process, Representative Robert Ace Barbers , the Vice Chairperson of the powerful Committee on Justice , appeared before the media . His remarks issued a sobering warning: The law is the law. No son, no father, no ally can stop the wheels of justice once they start turning.

This is an in-depth analysis of Cong. Barbers’ explosive interview and why this impeachment is different from all others.

CHAPTER 1: SANDRO MARCOS’ DILEMMA

One of the hottest questions on the public’s mind is the role of the President’s son, Ilocos Norte Representative Sandro Marcos .

Sandro is not just a congressman; he is the Senior Deputy Majority Leader . Under the rules of the House, the Committee on Rules (which is chaired by the Majority) is responsible for referring any impeachment complaint to the Committee on Justice.

This is where “Conflict of Interest” comes in.

What if the complaint you file is against your own father? Can Sandro block it? Can it be “sat down” or delayed?

Cong. Barbers’ answer was direct and unequivocal: NO.

“In this particular case, I think there is no choice for him,” ani Barbers. “Because it really says that it has to be referred to the Committee on Justice.”

Barbers explained that the process is “ministerial.” This means that it has no discretion or power to choose.

1. Once the Office of the Speaker receives the complaint, they have 10 session days to include it in the Order of Business.

2. After that, they have 3 session days to refer it to the Committee on Justice.

“So even if he is the Majority Leader, and even if the impeachable officer that is complained of is his father, procedure talaga is that… it has to be referred,” diin ni Barbers.

Imagine the gravity of the situation: His own son will push a paper that could lead to his father’s downfall. This is proof that within Congress, the Constitution must prevail over blood.

CHAPTER 2: THE ISSUE OF DRUGS AND “UNFIT TO SERVE”

What is the content of the complaint?

According to reports, one of the main allegations is the alleged use of illegal drugs by the President. It can be recalled that this issue became prominent during the campaign and in recent months due to the accusations of former President Duterte’s camp.

The media asked Barbers: Is drug use an impeachable offense?

In the Constitution, the grounds for impeachment are limited to:

• Culpable Violation of the Constitution

• Treason

• Bribery

• Graft and Corruption

• Other High Crimes

• Betrayal of Public Trust

According to Barbers, “drug addiction” is not directly listed as a ground. BUT, it can be included in the category of “Betrayal of Public Trust” or being “Unfit to Serve.”

Binasa sa briefing ang bahagi ng reklamo na nagsasabing: “When the person most expected to deny, deflect, or defend instead confirms the existence of addiction… Respondent has long been plagued by drug use, rendering him manifestly unfit to discharge the powers and responsibilities of the presidency.”

The complainants’ argument: If a President is addicted to drugs, how can he make decisions for the country? How can we entrust the nuclear codes or diplomacy to someone who is not in his right mind?

The complaint further states that PBBM’s refusal to undergo a drug test is a sign of concealment. “An innocent President would have no reason to refuse testing,” the document states.

This is a dangerous argument. If the complainants can prove that the President is “incapacitated” due to vice, this is sufficient grounds for his removal.

CHAPTER 3: THE “ONE-YEAR BAR RULE” (THE STRATEGY)

This is where the battle is fought: Timing .

Under the law, once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, it is prohibited to file a new complaint for one year . This is called the “One-Year Bar Rule.”

Why is this important?

There is something called a “Vaccine Complaint.” This is a strategy where a ally of the President will file a “weak” impeachment complaint. Because it is weak, Congress will dismiss it. But because it has been filed, the President is “vaccinated” or safe for a year. The real opposition can no longer file a strong complaint.

That’s why Barbers warned groups that plan to oust the President: “They must do so at the soonest possible time.”

There has been debate over the definition of “Initiated.”

• Previously: Just filing was considered initiated.

• SC Ruling (Duterte vs. House): The Supreme Court said that “initiation” occurs when it is referred to the Committee on Justice.

This means that there is still a “window period.” While the first complaint has not yet been referred to the committee, others can still pursue it. But by the time the gavel of the Committee on Justice falls, the door is closed.

CHAPTER 4: THE BATTLE BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE SUPREME COURT

An interesting part of the interview was Barbers’ complaint about the alleged interference of the Supreme Court (SC).

For Barbers, impeachment is a political process that is the exclusive power of Congress. The SC’s dictating when the deadline is or what the rules are is what he called “Judicial Overreach.”

“Can we tell them to decide on cases within 100 days? We cannot. So why should they tell us how to do our rules?” matapang na pahayag ni Barbers.

There is a Motion for Reconsideration pending in the Supreme Court regarding the rules of impeachment. Congress is requesting that the SC make a final decision so that they are not guessing.

This heralds a Constitutional Crisis . If Congress insists on following its own rules and ignores the SC, there will be a clash between the two branches of government. And at the center of it is the fate of President Marcos.

CHAPTER 5: THE NUMBER (CAN THEY GET THEM OUT?)

Ultimately, impeachment is a numbers game.

A 1/3 vote of all members of the House is needed to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Currently, the administration holds the “Super Majority.” Almost all of them are allies of Speaker Romualdez and PBBM.

But Barbers gave a meaningful statement.

“These things can change. Public opinion is also favorable to it… Being allied with the President will not matter if there is proof.”

According to him, even if you are an ally, if the evidence is very strong (for example: video of drug use or strong documents of corruption), congressmen will change their minds. They are also afraid of losing votes in the election if they side with an incumbent President.

“It will really all boil down to the complaint proof,” ani Barbers.

Gossip is not enough. A vague “Polpol” video is not enough. We need a “Smoking Gun.”

CHAPTER 6: THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY

The Philippines is at a critical stage.

If the impeachment moves forward, the government will come to a standstill. Everyone’s attention will be on the trial. The economy could be affected.

But if the allegations are true—that the President is using drugs or involved in corruption—it would be a greater risk to let him remain in office.

The Committee on Justice, led by Cong. Barbers, will be the gatekeeper. They will be the ones to filter. They will be the ones to decide whether the complaint is “Basura” or “Sapat”.

Barbers’ challenge to the public: Be vigilant. Don’t let the process boil over. Don’t let politics prevail over justice.

The ball is in Congress’ court. The question is: Are they on the side of the President, or are they on the side of the Truth?

Stay tuned for the next few days. Because of Philippine politics, in an instant, everything can change.