Are the 18 ex-Marines telling the truth, lying, or somewhere in between?Are the 18 ex-Marines telling the truth, lying, or somewhere in between? Before you decide, read this. This post breaks down the controversy through ten disciplinary lenses including law, psychology, history, and theology among others in plain and laymanized language so you can evaluate the claims responsibly. The full scholarly paper is available for download at the end of this post. For those who prefer listening over reading, a companion podcast episode is also available at the end of the post.
Quorum, Power, and the Bending of the Law, Part 2: The Doctrine, the Distortion, and the Deal Behind the Drama.
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?
Quorum, Power, and the Bending of the Law, Part 1: The Session, the Senators, and the Teleserye They All Scripted
On the afternoon of June 3, 2026, twelve senators reorganized the entire Philippine Senate without the other twelve. They invoked a 1949 Supreme Court case to justify it. This is Part 1 of a two-part series analyzing the crisis from multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, crossdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary perspectives spanning constitutional law, political science, public choice economics, sociology, philosophy, and Reformed theology. This post covers the full story, the players, the legal argument, and what the flood control corruption have to do with it all. The complete scholarly paper is available for download at the end of this post. If the law can be bent by twelve senators for obvious reasons that has something to do with their self interest, what guarantee do ordinary Filipinos have that it will not be bent again tomorrow?
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 Sotto Gambit Meets Reality: What Yesterday’s Senate Leadership Change Means for the Theory
Five days ago, the Sotto Gambit launched: a political theory months in the making, published as a seven-part blog series with a full accompanying policy paper. Plan A proposed a constitutional reset anchored on Sara Duterte’s Senate conviction and Vicente Sotto III’s appointment as Vice President. Yesterday, Sotto was ousted as Senate President by a 13-9 vote, Alan Peter Cayetano took his place, and the Senate math made Sara’s acquittal virtually certain. This addendum does not hide from those developments. It accounts for them directly, honestly, and without spin. Here is what changed, what did not, and where the theory goes from here.