THE PRECEDENT SET DURING THE CORONA IMPEACHMENT

​

Noong impeachment trial ni Chief Justice Renato Corona noong 2012, 23 lamang ang miyembro ng Senado dahil may isang bakanteng Senate seat. (Senate of the Philippines)

Bago pa man magsimula ang trial, malinaw ang naging posisyon noon ni Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile tungkol sa bilang ng boto na kailangan para sa conviction.

Ayon kay Enrile, 16 votes pa rin ang kailangan kahit bumaba pa sa 22, 20, o maging 17 ang bilang ng mga senador. Ipinaliwanag niya na ang pagbaba ng bilang ng sitting senators ay hindi awtomatikong nagpapababa sa 16-vote requirement. Sa kanyang interpretation, ang mga bakanteng puwesto o pagkawala ng senador ay effectively pumapabor sa respondent dahil nananatiling 16 ang kailangang boto para ma-convict. (web.senate.gov.ph)

At ito rin ang threshold na ginamit sa Corona impeachment.

Noong May 29, 2012, 20 senator-judges voted GUILTY while 3 voted NOT GUILTY, kaya nahatulan si Corona. Sa pag-anunsyo ng desisyon, sinabi ng Senate impeachment court na ang 20 guilty votes ay kumakatawan sa “at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.” (GMA Network)

Bakit mahalaga ito sa usapin ngayon?

Ang historical practice noong Corona trial ay mahalagang reference point sa debate kung paano dapat kwentahin ang constitutional requirement na “two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”

Kung 23 ang actual sitting senators, ang two-thirds nito ay 15.33, kaya kung actual membership ang pagbabasehan, kailangan pa rin ng 16 votes dahil hindi maaaring magkaroon ng fraction ng isang boto.

Pero mas mahalaga, hindi simpleng mathematical rounding lamang ang posisyon ni Enrile noon. Ang interpretation niya ay nakabatay sa constitutional Senate membership of 24, kaya sinabi niyang mananatiling 16 ang requirement kahit bumaba pa ang bilang ng senators. (web.senate.gov.ph)

Kaya ang tanong sa kasalukuyang debate ay hindi lamang:

“Ilan ang sitting senators?”

Kundi:

“Ano ang tamang constitutional meaning ng ‘two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate’ kapag may bakanteng puwesto o nabawasan ang aktuwal na membership?”

Ang Corona impeachment provides an important historical example of how the Senate handled that question in 2012. Gayunman, kung legal na “binding precedent” ba ito para sa isang kasalukuyang impeachment proceeding ay hiwalay na constitutional question na maaaring pagtalunan.

History gives us the record. The Constitution determines the rule.

#CoronaImpeachment #Impeachment #PhilippineSenate #Constitution #TwoThirdsVote #PhilippinePolitics #LegalHistory #Senate

​

Batay sa 2025 Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), idineklara nina Pangulong Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. at First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos ang ₱475,931,289.93 na net worth, at wala silang iniulat na liabilities. Sa hiwalay na professional appraisal na kalakip ng SALN, tinatayang ₱1.029 bilyon ang fair market value ng kanilang real properties at ₱427.419 milyon ang personal properties—kaya umabot sa humigit-kumulang ₱1.457 bilyon ang kanilang kabuuang appraised net worth. 

Samantala, ayon sa 2025 SALN ni Vice President Sara Duterte, ang pinagsamang net worth nila ng kanyang asawang si Atty. Manases Carpio ay ₱98,656,131.20. Nakasaad din sa filing ang humigit-kumulang ₱122.8 milyon na assets at ₱24.14 milyon na liabilities. 

Mahalagang linawin na hindi direktang maihahambing ang ₱1.457 bilyong professionally appraised net worth ng Marcos couple sa ₱98.656 milyong declared SALN net worth ng Duterte-Carpio couple dahil magkaiba ang valuation basis. Kung declared SALN net worth lamang ang paghahambingin, ang figures ay ₱475.93 milyon kumpara sa ₱98.66 milyon. 

Parehong may nakatalang business interests at iba pang financial interests ang dalawang mag-asawa sa kani-kanilang disclosures. Sa kaso nina Duterte at Carpio, ang kanilang mga business interests ay naging bahagi rin ng pagsusuri sa mga SALN na iniharap sa mga pagdinig noong 2026. 

Sa usapin ng SALN, mahalagang paghiwalayin ang declared value, current appraised value, assets, liabilities, at net worth upang maging patas at tama ang paghahambing.

Ang SALN ay mahalagang instrumento para sa transparency at accountability ng mga opisyal ng gobyerno. Pero sa paghahambing ng yaman, kailangang malinaw kung declared SALN value o professionally appraised value ang ginagamit. Hindi dapat paghaluin ang dalawang magkaibang valuation basis dahil maaari itong magbigay ng maling impresyon.

Sa huli, hindi lamang laki ng net worth ang mahalagang tingnan. Mas mahalaga ang malinaw na disclosure ng assets, liabilities, business interests, at pinagmulan ng yaman alinsunod sa batas. Hayaan nating ang verified records at dokumentadong impormasyon ang magsilbing basehan ng ating pag-unawa.

Mention:

President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. • First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos • Vice President Sara Duterte • Atty. Manases Carpio • Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)

Hashtags:

#SALN #NetWorth #Transparency #Accountability #Philippines     

Follow:

Follow for more verified news, public-record explainers, and updates.

HaveFunKeepFit | Coach NoelInCaseYouMissedPH

Comment:

💬 Ano ang pinakamahalagang impormasyon na dapat tingnan sa SALN—assets, liabilities, business interests, o pagbabago ng net worth? Share your thoughts respectfully below.

CHIZ ESCUDERO SEEKS CLARIFICATION ON “PARTICIPATE IN ANY BUSINESS” DURING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

​

A constitutional question took center stage during the September 14, 2026 impeachment proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte: How broad is the prohibition against the President and Vice President participating in business while holding office?

During the proceedings, Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero questioned retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, who appeared as an expert witness, about the meaning of the phrase “participate in any business” under Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

The provision states, in part, that the President, Vice President, members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistants shall not, during their tenure, “directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government.”

One of the issues raised was whether “participation” refers only to actively managing or operating a business—or whether ownership, shareholdings and other financial interests may also fall within the constitutional restriction.

Cabotaje-Tang explained during her testimony that participation could be direct or indirect and discussed circumstances involving ownership of shares and positions as a corporate director or officer. She also addressed Escudero’s questions concerning whether divestment may be required even when the business interest involved is relatively small.

The exchange highlights an important constitutional issue: the restrictions placed on the country’s highest executive officials are intended to address potential conflicts between public duties and private financial interests.

The discussion formed part of the ongoing impeachment proceedings. Testimony and arguments presented during a trial should not by themselves be treated as a final determination of liability; that determination rests with the impeachment court under the applicable constitutional process.

For readers, the key question remains: Where should the constitutional line be drawn between simply owning an interest in a business and actually “participating” in that business?

Source: Proceedings of the Senate Impeachment Court, September 14, 2026.

#Philippines #ImpeachmentTrial #SenateImpeachmentCourt #ChizEscudero #SaraDuterte #1987Constitution #PhilippinePolitics #CurrentEvents