Victoriano Aureus Salud & Tiu

20/07/2026

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗧 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗘𝗢𝗣𝗟𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗧𝗘𝗖𝗛𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗪𝗢𝗡’𝗧 𝗦𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟

As the historic second impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte enters its second week, the Senate floor has become a battlefield of legal objections. With the trial starting on 06 July 2026, early clashes over alleged grave threats against the First Family have some viewers groaning over how "technical" the proceedings have become. But here is the hard truth: in an impeachment trial, legal technicalities ultimately take a back seat to public perception.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has declared impeachment a sui generis (class of its own) political process. The late constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas frequently emphasized that impeachment is not a criminal prosecution aimed at imprisonment; rather, it is the people's "safety device" to withdraw a betrayed political mandate. The ultimate decision-makers are not impartial justices, but 24 senator-judges whose political survival is intrinsically tied to the electorate.

This political reality dictates how evidence is weighed. The defense might skillfully block testimonies or quash subpoenas citing strict confidentiality rules. Yet, they walk a dangerous tightrope. If the public perceives these legal maneuvers as a shield to hide the truth—especially regarding explosive allegations of confidential fund misuse or assassination threats— the political backlash will be fierce.

Senate Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero has ruled that 16 votes are required to convict. Securing those votes is not about fulfilling a strict, courtroom burden of proof. It is about presenting evidence in a manner so clear and compelling that the public demands accountability. If the prosecution brings undeniable, smoking-gun proof, any senator protecting the Vice President behind legal loopholes risks political su***de. Conversely, if the prosecution’s case is weak, the defense's technical victories give senator-judges the perfect "political cover" to acquit without facing public wrath.

The prosecution acknowledged this reality after Week 1, stressing that their success hinges on whether their evidence withstands public scrutiny, not just on scoring courtroom points.

As this 92-day trial unfolds, both panels must remember they are not just arguing before politicians—they are pleading to millions of Filipino voters. In a purely political exercise, a brilliant legal technicality might win an objection on the floor, but it is the appreciation of raw evidence (or lack thereof) by the people that will dictate the senators' votes and the final verdict.

04/05/2026

Ateneo Law School has a new Dean. Congrats Atty. Maita Chan-Gonzaga!

06/03/2026

VP DUTERTE IMPEACHMENT: LEGAL HURDLES AND NEXT STEPS

The House Committee on Justice has just completed the first stage of the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. Two out of the three impeachment complaints filed hurdled the legal requirements of sufficiency in form and substance.

SUFFICIENCY IN FORM

An impeachment complaint is sufficient in form if it is verified (sworn under oath), properly endorsed by a member of the House, and complies with the required formatting and procedural rules such as the one-year bar rule.

The Supreme Court in Duterte vs. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 278353, January 28, 2026) reiterated its ruling in Francisco vs. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003) wherein it defined the “initiation” of impeachment as the moment a complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice.

The one-year bar rule is a procedural shield that protects impeachable officials from harassment, so that they only defend themselves against impeachment once in any twelve-month period and ensures that Congress is not constantly encumbered by impeachment trials which would distract from its primary job of legislation.

The Committee, on March 2, 2026, set aside the impeachment complaint of the Makabayan bloc for violating the one-year bar rule, having been filed four days before the end of the constitutional ban on February 6, 2026.

SUFFICIENCY IN SUBSTANCE

Once form is established, the Committee determines if the complaints are sufficient in substance by examining whether the complaint contains a clear and specific recital of facts that meet the legal definition of impeachable offenses cited in Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution, namely: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust and other high crimes.

On March 4, 2026, the Committee on Justice voted that the Third and Fourth complaints against the Vice President met these criteria. The Committee found that the allegations regarding the "assassin" threats and the misuse of confidential funds were described with enough factual detail that, if proven true, they would constitute Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

NEXT STEPS

Since sufficiency in substance has been established, the House is legally required to furnish the Vice President with a copy of the Resolution and the complaints, and issue a Notice to Answer, giving her 10 days from March 4, 2026 (the day the House Committee declared sufficiency of substance) to submit her formal response and counter-affidavits.

If the Vice President chooses not to file a formal Answer, the House Rules state that all material allegations in the complaint are "deemed controverted.” This means the law treats the situation as if she had issued a general denial of all charges. Although it does not count as an admission of guilt, by not filing an Answer, the Vice President waives the opportunity to present her own evidence at the Committee level.

The Committee on Justice will move forward with the Hearing phase regardless of the Vice President’s participation by setting dates to hear the testimony of the complainants and their witnesses. Without an Answer on file, the Vice President's legal team would be limited in their ability to cross-examine witnesses or present a cohesive defense strategy during these initial deliberations.

The Committee will finalize its Formal Report and Resolution based only on the evidence presented by the complainants. This Report is then sent to the Plenary, where the one-third (1/3) vote is required to officially impeach the Vice President and transmit the case to the Senate.

Assuming the Vice President waives her right to participate at the Committee level and the House officially impeaches her, she is not precluded from presenting her evidence at the Senate trial.

# # #

Disclaimer: Op-eds published here express the personal views of the individual lawyers and do not represent the official position or legal advice of VAST Law Firm. Nothing herein should be construed as legal advice or as creating an attorney–client relationship.

28/02/2026

Rest in peace Dean Joey, and safe journey into the great beyond.

It is with deep sadness that we inform the University community of the passing of Atty Jose Maria “Joey” G Hofileña, Dean of the Ateneo Law School, on 26 February 2026.

We request the Ateneo community to keep Joey and his family in your prayers.

Read the obituary: https://go.ateneo.edu/U2526-073

27/02/2026

Puwede bang arestuhin ang isang Pilipino, dito sa Pilipinas, kahit walang warrant mula sa isang Filipino judge?

Yan ang tunay na isyu.

“Inviolable” ang ating right to liberty. Hindi puwedeng damputin ang isang tao basta-basta. Malinaw yan sa Bill of Rights ng ating Saligang Batas. Ang general rule: bawal ang pag-aresto. Ang exception: may warrant of arrest issued “upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge…”

Ngayon, may balita na may alleged ICC warrant laban sa ilang kasalukuyang senador ng Pilipinas.

Ang tanong: ang ICC judge ba ay pasok sa “judge” na tinutukoy ng ating Constitution na maaaring mag-isyu ng warrant na ipatutupad dito sa loob ng Philippine jurisdiction?

May dalawang pananaw.

Unang Panig: sapat na raw ang ICC warrant.

Hindi raw dinistinguish ng Constitution (Art III, Sec 2) kung Filipino o foreign “judge” ang tinutukoy ng Bill of Rights natin. And when the law does not distinguish, neither should we. Yan ang kanilang pananaw.

Pero dito pumapasok ang problema.

Ang Constitution mismo ang nagde-define kung sino ang maaaring maging judge. Context is key. Ayon sa Art VIII, Sec 7: walang maaaring ma-appoint na judge kung hindi siya 1.) citizen ng Pilipinas at 2.) miyembro ng Philippine Bar.

ICC judges ba ay Filipino citizens? Miyembro ba sila ng Philippine Bar?

Hindi.

Puwede ba sila mag issue ng warrant na maaring ma-enforce dito sa Pilipinas na walang local warrant issued by a Filipino judge?

Kung susundin natin ang logic na sapat na ang foreign warrant dahil hindi raw “nag-distinguish” ang Constitution, lalabas ang absurdity. Example: kapag sinabing President sa Constitution, puwede bang foreign President? Kapag sinabing Senate, puwede bang foreign Senate? Maraming beses din yan hindi rin dinistinguish kung Philippine or foreign.

Pero malinaw ang sagot dahil malinaw ang context. Philippine Constitution ito. Para sa Philippine institutions ito.

Kapag power to declare martial law, President of the Philippines yan. Kapag concurrence sa treaties, Senate of the Philippines yan. Hindi na kailangang lagyan ng adjective dahil malinaw na sa context.

Ang tunay na isyu dito ay enforceability sa loob ng ating teritoryo. Hindi sapat ang sabihing “may warrant.” Ang tanong ay: kaninong warrant ang may bisa sa loob ng Pilipinas?

Mahalagang linawin: hindi ito usapin kung may foreign warrant o wala.

Ang usapin ay kung may domestic legal mechanism na nagbibigay dito ng bisa—isang batas o malinaw na proseso na dumaraan sa Philippine courts.

Sa ngayon, wala tayong probisyon na nagsasabing ang foreign warrant, by itself, ay automatically enforceable dito nang hindi dumadaan sa isang Filipino court at judge.

Kapag tinanggap natin na puwedeng i-bypass ang Philippine courts dahil lamang sa hyper-literal reading ng salitang “judge,” binubuksan natin ang pinto sa isang mapanganib na prinsipyo: na ang sarili nating judicial system ay maaaring isantabi sa pag-aresto ng mga Pilipino sa loob ng sariling bansa.

At dito pumapasok ang usapin ng sovereignty.

Sovereignty means supremacy within our own territory and people. And it includes the principle of non-interference. Sa usapin ng pag-aresto, pagpapatupad ng batas, at dispensation of justice sa loob ng Pilipinas, okay lang bas sa atin na tanggalin sa equation yung involvement ng Philippine justice system, particularly our courts and judges?

At kung sagot ay oo, ito ba ay isang pagpapatibay, o pagsuko ng ating soberanya?

Dagdag pa natin, pinapayagan ba ito ng Bill of Rights ng ating Saligang Batas?

# # #

Disclaimer: Op-eds published here express the personal views of the individual lawyers and do not represent the official position or legal advice of VAST Law Firm. Nothing herein should be construed as legal advice or as creating an attorney–client relationship.

26/02/2026

When “Local Justice” Falls Short: The ICC’s Rationale for Proceeding vs. Duterte.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) operates on the principle of complementarity. Under this foundational rule, the Court may only exercise jurisdiction if a national legal system is genuinely unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute international crimes. If domestic courts are actively and adequately handling a case, the ICC must defer to local sovereignty.

The ICC has historically established strict parameters for determining this "unwillingness." In past rulings, such as those regarding the situation in Venezuela, the Court established a clear precedent: the domestic prosecution of low-ranking officers, while ignoring the high-level officials who allegedly orchestrated the systemic policies, does not satisfy the requirements of genuine justice. In such instances, the state is deemed unwilling, and the ICC retains jurisdiction.

In the case of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, the application of this same standard has been central. Following his presidency, no domestic criminal cases were filed against Duterte in the Philippines concerning allegations of crimes against humanity or mass killings related to the national anti-drug campaign.

The Limits of Domestic Investigations:

While the Philippine government initially asserted its domestic judicial system was capable—pointing to the successful prosecution of a select number of low-ranking police officers—admissions from within the government highlighted severe systemic limitations. Officials in the Marcos Jr. administration publicly acknowledged hurdles in prosecuting the drug war locally. Notably, then-Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla stated that gathering evidence and building cases is extremely difficult because "those who need to speak are involved in the crime."

The ICC's Jurisdictional Rulings:

Applying its established precedents, the ICC evaluated whether the Philippines' local efforts met the Rome Statute's threshold.

January 2023 Pre-Trial Chamber Decision: The Chamber concluded the domestic initiatives did not sufficiently mirror the scope of the ICC's investigation, as they failed to investigate the systemic nature of the campaign or the high-ranking officials involved.

July 2023 Appeals Chamber Judgment: In a definitive 3-2 ruling, the Appeals Chamber rejected Manila's appeal, cementing the Court's jurisdiction based on the state's lack of genuine investigations into the campaign's architects.

These jurisdictional rulings regarding complementarity formed the legal basis for the ICC arrest warrant, leading to Duterte's transfer to The Hague in March 2025. Today, as the confirmation of charges hearings proceed in February 2026, the case provides a strict, factual illustration of how the ICC interprets domestic inaction under the complementarity principle.

# # #

Disclaimer: Op-eds published here express the personal views of the individual lawyers and do not represent the official position or legal advice of VAST Law Firm. Nothing herein should be construed as legal advice or as creating an attorney–client relationship.

25/12/2025