Hainee

Dear Philippine Senator- Judges;

Obey the constitution.
Fear God.

The people are watching.
God is omniscient

Very big difference

Congratulations to all new RN (registered nurses) 2026 🎉🎉🎉

Angas pa din ang tatay ng maraming Filipino 💙👊

AZCUNA: 2/3 REQUIREMENT, STRICT AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION

Former Supreme Court Justice Adolfo Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, gave the following answers to the Senate Impeachment Court's three constitutional questions.

1. Who should be counted under "all the Members of the Senate"?

Azcuna's Answer: The phrase refers to every single individual holding an active seat in the chamber, regardless of their location, health, or legal status.

The Logic: Azcuna argued that as long as the missing senators remain legal members of the Senate (meaning they have not died, resigned, or been officially expelled), they must be included in the baseline. He noted that even a suspended senator still legally occupies their office and cannot be mathematically erased from the headcount.

2. Can the 16-vote conviction threshold be adjusted?

Azcuna's Answer: No, it must remain fixed at exactly 16 votes.

The Danger: Azcuna warned that dynamically shrinking the denominator based only on who shows up creates a slippery slope. He explained that changing the rules midway "can effectively reduce the two-thirds requirement to a simple majority," which violates the constitutional design. He emphasized that a high, unchanging threshold of 16 votes was intentionally put in place by the framers to prevent the weaponization of impeachment in partisan politics.

3. What happens if the Senate lowers the pool anyway and convicts with fewer than 16 votes?

Azcuna's Answer: The decision can be challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Precedent: While the Senate does have the sole power to try impeachment cases, Azcuna argued that they cannot amend or overrule the Constitution. He stated that if the Senate tribunal enters a judgment of conviction with only 15 votes instead of 16, it constitutes a blatant "grave abuse of discretion." In his view, such a move would allow the Supreme Court to step in and nullify the verdict.

Source of inspiration na magnakaw, mentor kung paano magnanakaw, at guiding light kung paano maitago ang mga ninakaw.

Tahimik mga pinklawan at bebeem supporters neto, or baka sisihin pa din si Duterte.