IMPEACHMENT COURT IS NOT ICC: Escudero Corrects ICC Reference During Senate Trial

​

IMPEACHMENT COURT IS NOT ICC: Escudero Corrects ICC Reference During Senate Trial

Introduction

A brief but significant exchange during the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte drew public attention after Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero reminded the prosecution that the Philippine impeachment court is not the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The moment came after Lead House Prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro cited ICC practice regarding the notarization of documents. Escudero immediately responded:

“Noted. But we are not the ICC.”

The remark underscored the distinction between Philippine constitutional proceedings and international judicial processes.

Background

The Senate is currently convened as an impeachment court under the 1987 Philippine Constitution to hear the case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Throughout the proceedings, both the prosecution and defense have presented legal arguments, documentary evidence, and witness testimonies. As with any impeachment trial, disputes over the admissibility and authentication of evidence are expected.

During one such discussion, the prosecution referred to ICC procedures, arguing that notarization of certain documents is not required under ICC rules.

The Investigation

In response, Presiding Officer Escudero clarified that while the prosecution’s observation was noted, the Senate impeachment court is governed by Philippine law—not by the procedural rules of the ICC.

His statement emphasized that:

• The Senate impeachment court derives its authority from the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
• Proceedings are governed by the Senate’s Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials.
• International court procedures do not automatically apply to domestic constitutional proceedings.

The exchange became one of the notable moments of the day’s hearing, highlighting the importance of identifying the correct legal framework when presenting arguments before the impeachment court.

Why the Issue Matters

The discussion goes beyond a procedural disagreement.

It highlights a fundamental legal principle: different courts operate under different jurisdictions and procedural rules.

The ICC is an international tribunal created by the Rome Statute to prosecute crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

The Philippine Senate, when sitting as an impeachment court, performs a constitutional function that is governed by Philippine law and the Constitution.

Understanding this distinction helps the public better appreciate why procedural rules cannot simply be transferred from one legal system to another.

Important Perspective

Legal proceedings are often shaped not only by facts but also by the rules that govern how evidence is presented and evaluated.

Whether one supports the prosecution or the defense, adherence to the applicable legal framework is essential to maintaining the credibility of the impeachment process.

Escudero’s reminder served as a procedural clarification rather than a ruling on the merits of the evidence itself. Ultimately, the admissibility and weight of evidence remain matters for the impeachment court to resolve under its own rules.

Conclusion

The exchange between Rep. Gerville Luistro and Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero highlighted the importance of applying the correct legal standards in constitutional proceedings.

As the impeachment trial continues, each side is expected to present arguments grounded in Philippine law, while the Senate impeachment court determines the issues based on the Constitution, Senate rules, and applicable jurisprudence.

Your Thoughts

Do you think Presiding Officer Escudero made the correct procedural clarification by reminding the prosecution that “the impeachment court is not the ICC”?

How important is it for legal arguments to remain within the proper constitutional framework during an impeachment trial?

Mention

Source: Senate Impeachment Trial Proceedings • July 21, 2026

Hashtags

#ImpeachmentTrial #SenateImpeachment #ChizEscudero #GervilleLuistro #PhilippinePolitics #RuleOfLaw #1987Constitution #LegalProcess #CurrentEvents #InCaseYouMissedPH

Follow

Follow InCaseYouMissedPH for updates, balanced political coverage, legal explainers, and breaking national news.

Share your thoughts respectfully in the comments below.

₱1.89-Billion House Communications Budget Draws Public Scrutiny

​

₱1.89-Billion House Communications Budget Draws Public Scrutiny

Introduction

Public spending has once again become the center of national discussion after an investigative report questioned the dramatic increase in the House of Representatives’ budget for communication-related expenses. The report has fueled calls for greater transparency and accountability in the use of taxpayers’ money.

Background

According to political commentator and investigative journalist CJ Hirro, the House of Representatives allocated ₱1.89 billion for telephone, internet, postage, and courier services in its 2025 budget.

The report compared this allocation with previous years and cited Commission on Audit (COA) records showing that the government’s actual spending for the same category reportedly ranged from ₱274 million to ₱280 million annually between 2022 and 2024.

The report also highlighted the following figures:

• 2022: ₱562 million allocated
• 2023: Additional ₱600 million reportedly approved
• 2025: Budget increased to ₱1.89 billion

These figures have prompted questions about the necessity and justification for the significant increase.

The Investigation

The investigation examines how public funds were allocated, whether the appropriations complied with existing budgeting rules, and how the increases relate to broader concerns over government spending.

According to the report, the review traces the movement of public funds through official budget documents and discusses legal provisions governing budget augmentation, savings, and fund transfers.

The report also places the communications budget within the wider context of ongoing government investigations into public expenditure, including issues surrounding infrastructure and flood-control projects.

Why the Issue Matters

Government budgets are funded by taxpayers. Because of this, citizens have a legitimate interest in understanding:

• Why major budget increases occur.
• Whether appropriations are supported by operational needs.
• How allocated funds are ultimately spent.
• Whether government agencies comply with budgeting and auditing laws.

Transparency in public spending strengthens public trust and promotes accountability in government.

Important Perspective

The investigative report raises questions and presents information based on official budget documents and publicly available records. Allegations or criticisms directed at any public official remain subject to investigation, official findings, and the opportunity for those concerned to respond.

As with any issue involving public funds, conclusions should ultimately be based on verified evidence, official audits, and due legal process.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding the House’s ₱1.89-billion communications budget underscores the importance of transparency in government spending. Whether the increase can be fully justified remains a matter for public discussion, oversight institutions, and the appropriate investigative bodies.

An informed public, supported by accurate information and official records, remains essential in promoting good governance and ensuring that public resources are managed responsibly.

Your Thoughts

Do you believe the increase in the communications budget was justified, or should Congress provide a more detailed public explanation?

Share your thoughts respectfully in the comments below.

#Philippines #Politics #GovernmentSpending #Transparency #Accountability #Congress #COA #PublicFunds #TaxpayerMoney #CurrentEvents

PBBM Warns Remaining Individuals Allegedly Linked to Flood Control Scandal: “Surrender While You Still Can”

​

PBBM Warns Remaining Individuals Allegedly Linked to Flood Control Scandal: “Surrender While You Still Can”

President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. has delivered one of his strongest public warnings yet to individuals allegedly involved in irregularities surrounding flood control projects. His message signals the administration’s continued commitment to pursuing accountability over the alleged misuse of public funds intended to protect Filipino communities from flooding.

According to the statement circulating online, President Marcos said that those allegedly connected to the flood control scandal have already been identified and that investigations are not limited by political affiliation. The claim further states that the government’s review covers flood control projects dating back to 2016, involving both political allies and opposition figures.

The statement has generated widespread public discussion, especially following recent flooding incidents that renewed concerns about the effectiveness of flood mitigation infrastructure across the country.

Flood control projects receive billions of pesos from the national budget each year to construct drainage systems, dikes, pumping stations, river improvements, and other infrastructure designed to minimize flood damage.

When these projects are delayed, poorly implemented, or allegedly affected by corruption, communities may face greater risks during heavy rains and typhoons. Because of this, any investigation into possible anomalies carries significant public interest.

The statement attributed to President Marcos suggests that authorities are continuing to gather evidence against individuals allegedly involved, regardless of whether they belong to the administration or the opposition. However, it is important to note that allegations must still be proven through proper investigation and legal proceedings before any determination of liability is made.

Filipinos deserve flood control projects that genuinely protect lives, homes, and livelihoods. Public infrastructure exists to serve the people, and every peso allocated for these projects should be used responsibly and transparently.

If evidence establishes that public funds were misused, accountability through due process is essential. At the same time, investigations should remain impartial and evidence-based, ensuring fairness to everyone involved.

As investigations continue, many Filipinos will be watching closely to see whether those responsible—if any wrongdoing is proven—will be held accountable under the law.

The public also hopes that future infrastructure projects will prioritize transparency, quality, and the safety of every community vulnerable to flooding.

Mention:

@BBM
@OfficialGazettePH
@DPWHph

Hashtag:

#PBBM #FloodControl #FloodControlScandal #Philippines #Infrastructure #PublicAccountability #Transparency #GoodGovernance #NewsUpdate #CurrentEvents #PoliticsPH #ICYM #BreakingNews #FYP #HighlightsEveryone

Follow:

📢 Follow ICYM (In Case You Missed) for balanced news updates, political developments, and in-depth analysis of the stories shaping the Philippines.

Comment:

💬 What reforms do you think are needed to improve transparency and accountability in government infrastructure projects? Share your thoughts respectfully in the comments below.