In Part 1, we looked at what happened when twelve senators reorganized the Senate on June 3, 2026. In Part 2, we ask a different question: Did they actually have the legal authority to do it? The senators relied on a 1949 Supreme Court case called Avelino v. Cuenco, but does that case still apply under the 1987 Constitution? This post explains the controversy in plain language, examines a legal argument that many commentators missed, and explores why some believe the real battle was not about impeachment at all, but about control of a major corruption investigation. Beyond constitutional law, we also examine the issue through the lenses of political science, political economy, sociology, philosophy, comparative jurisprudence, and Reformed theology. Each lens helps answer a different question: How do political actors manipulate institutions? What incentives drive their decisions? How is public perception shaped? Does the precedent really fit the facts? And was the Senate being used for its proper purpose? By bringing these perspectives together, we gain a fuller picture of what may have happened on June 3 than constitutional law alone can provide. The complete scholarly paper is available for download at the end of this post. If the Constitution says one thing and politicians say another, who should we believe? And if the rules can be interpreted differently depending on who benefits, what does that mean for ordinary Filipinos?
Too Heavenly Minded, Too Earthly Useless?- Why the Church Must Respond to the Issues Tearing Apart the Nation
“What is this going to profit the body of Christ?” That question, asked in response to a theological paper on the ICC controversy and Bato dela Rosa’s arrest, reveals a deeper problem within the modern Church itself. Somewhere along the way, many Christians began treating justice, governance, abuse of power, and national moral responsibility as “too political” for the gospel. But Scripture tells a different story. The prophets confronted kings. John the Baptist rebuked rulers. Paul reasoned about justice before governors. The Church was never called to escape the world, but to bring every sphere of life under the Lordship of Christ. This article is a theological and prophetic reckoning with the burning issues tearing apart the nation, and a challenge to a sleeping Church that too often remains silent while society collapses around it
The Hague Is Not The Way, Part 2: The Legal Maze
Did the ICC even have the legal authority to issue a warrant against Bato Dela Rosa in the first place? The government moved to arrest him. The media called it justice. But that question, the most important legal question in this entire controversy is one that even some of the ICC’s own judges could not agree on. This post breaks down why, in plain language. We look at what the Rome Statute actually says about countries that leave the ICC, why the Philippines walking out in 2019 created a legal problem that goes all the way to the heart of who we are as a sovereign people, why there are three specific legal arguments that make the Dela Rosa warrant even more legally shaky than the Duterte case, and why the strongest argument in this whole debate is not about politics at all, it is about the sovereignty of our Constitution, the dignity of our courts, and the Filipino people’s own right to decide what justice looks like on their soil. The answer, this post argues, is not a court in the Hague. It never was. For the complete legal and multidisciplinary analysis, download the full scholarly paper linked at the end of this post