The Barrister

23/09/2026

IMPEACHMENT COURT LOWERS TWO-THIRDS CONVICTION VOTE

PASAY CITY — By a vote of 13-1, the Senate Impeachment Court has ruled to overturn the 16-vote threshold for conviction in the impeachment proceedings today, September 23.

The Impeachment Court adopted a rule providing that a senator-judge must be legally and physically able to participate in the proceedings to cast a vote, with Senator-judge Francis Escudero as the lone dissenter.

Ten senators did not participate in the voting. Senator-judges Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, B**g Go, Imee Marcos, Robinhood Padilla, and Camille Villar boycotted the voting, while Senators Ronald Dela Rosa, Jinggoy Estrada, Loren Legarda, and Rodante Marcoleta were absent due to either medical or legal reasons.

Under the adopted rule, a senator-judge may not vote in impeachment proceedings if the senator is detained, suspended, or otherwise legally restrained from exercising their functions; is being sought by authorities but whose whereabouts are unknown; is physically or medically incapacitated; is beyond the coercive powers of the Senate; or is under similar circumstances that prevent participation in the proceedings.

Words by Ezra Viola
Graphics by Lei Mercado | thebarrister

21/09/2026

THE BLOOD BENEATH THE GOLD

It is late. The streets are empty. A radio murmurs in the corner, then suddenly goes silent. The television follows. The newspaper that should arrive in the morning may never reach the doorstep. Outside, military vehicles move through the darkness.

Then comes the sound: Knock. Knock. Knock.

On Septermber 21, 1972, Ferdinand E. Marcos signed Proclamation No. 1081, placing the Philippines under Martial Law. The proclamation cited rebellion and threats to national security as its grounds for imposition which was followed by the suspension of civil liberties, the closure of several independent media outlets, and a sweeping campaign of arrests and detention.

According to Amnesty International,
approximately 70,000 people were imprisoned, 34,000 tortured, and more than 3,200 killed.

Behind every number was a name.
A student.
A journalist.
A lawyer.
An activist.
A farmer.
A priest.
A mother.
A son who did not come home.

The period was marked by documented cases of arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial executions. Across the country, fear taught people that silence could be safer than speech.

In 1986, those who have been made to whisper filled the streets of EDSA, bringing an end to the Marcos dictatorship.

In 2013, the Philippine government enacted Republic Act No. 10368, recognizing human rights violations committed during the Martial Law period and providing reparations to qualified victims.

Yet, decades later, the battle over memory materialized ー a different kind of narrative is purported as years of Marcos’ rule is hailed to be the “golden age,” while documented abuses are minimized and casted aside.

Today, the movement is more than just a slogan, it is a stern warning against forgetting because the so-called “golden age” was never made of gold. Beneath the grandeur was a prison cell, behind every glittering image was a voice silenced, and between the promise of prosperity was a price paid in blood.

The gold was never real, but the blood was.

Words by Marielle Jasmine Eleazar Monteros
Graphics by Aubrey Pahilga | thebarrister

18/09/2026

BREAKING NEWS: Leading press freedom group CMFR to cease operation after 37 years

Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), a private, non-stock, non-profit organization dedicated to press freedom, will cease operations effective September 30 after nearly four decades, citing concerns for funding.

Established in 1989 by veteran journalist Melinda Quintos De Jesus who was a key figure in Mosquito Press during the Marcos dictatorship, CMFR has championed the power of a free press in a democratic society by promoting responsible journalism and encouraging journalistic excellence in different sectors of the society.

As a media watchdog, CMFR has been the leading source of information on journalist killings, attacks and threats against the press and impunity. It also prides itself as the first and only journalism review in Asia through its Philippine Journalism Review (PJR) Reports, where the findings of its review have helped establish criteria and guideline in journalism conduct and training modules for campus journalism, media literacy, among other initiatives.

The organization also acted as the organizing body for prominent Philippine journalism awards, particularly the Jaime V. Ongpin Awards for Excellence in Journalism, an award recognizing best media practice and investigative reporting, and the Marshall McLuhan Fellowship.

Since its inception 37 years ago, CMFR has been supported by Philippine and international funders. But in its statement released Friday, Sept. 18, on its social media, the organization said that “multiple factors have affected the funding environment, making it difficult for CMFR to secure the necessary funds for its operations.”

Words by Jillian Velasco
Graphics by Lei Mercado | thebarrister

18/09/2026

SBU GRADUATE SCHOOL OF LAW DEAN: “FIXED 16-VOTE THRESHOLD WILL LEAD TO ABSURDITY”

In a memorandum submitted to the Senate Impeachment Court on September 7, San Beda Graduate School of Law Dean Rev. Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino asserted that the two-thirds threshold to convict in impeachment proceedings should not be treated as fixed at 16.

In interpreting the constitutional provision, “no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate”, Dean Aquino argued that senators who are qualified to vote must be limited to those who have actively participated in the deliberations and were given the opportunity to explain their decision.

He further manifested that treating 16 votes as an immutable threshold, without accounting for the circumstances that prevented senators from participating such as vacancies due to death, resignation, or incapacities, could result in absurd and unfair outcomes in the impeachment proceedings.

Ultimately, Dean Aquino urged the Senate to exercise its constitutional power in determining the number of votes required for conviction and in interpreting what constitutes “two-thirds” under the Constitution.

Words by Ella Isabel Abad
Graphics by Danica Chloe | thebarrister

17/09/2026

ICYMI: DUTERTE FLESH AND BLOOD IN 3RD HEARING

Former President Rodrigo Duterte made a personal appearance before the International Criminal Court Trial Chamber III at The Hague, The Netherlands, Wednesday afternoon (Philippine Time), September 16.

The hearing was for the third status conference on the crimes-against-humanity charges he faces for alleged murders during his time as Philippine President and Davao City Mayor.

The said hearing was Duterte's first public appearance since he was flown to the Netherlands for over a year.

Trial Chamber III Presiding Judge Joanna Korner called for a streamlined trial due to the number of witnesses and experts, and is expected to open the trial on November 30, 2026.

Words by Mary Philline Rodriguez
Graphics by Rhoan Fiel | thebarrister

17/09/2026

: BAR BULLETIN NO. 1

The Office of the 2027 Bar Chairperson Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario issued Bar Bulletin No. 1-2027 on September 16, three days after the conclusion of the , outlining the modality, schedule, and coverage for the Bar Examinations.

The 2027 Bar Examinations will be held electronically on September 5, 8, and 12 at local testing centers nationwide.

The examinations will cover two subjects per day:

Day 1 — September 5
• Morning: Political and Public International Law
• Afternoon: Commercial and Taxation Laws

Day 2 — September 8
• Morning: Civil Law and Land Titles and Deeds
• Afternoon: Labor Law and Social Legislation

Day 3 — September 12
• Morning: Criminal Law and Remedial Law
• Afternoon: Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises

Morning sessions will run from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., while afternoon sessions will be held from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

In his message, the 2027 Bar Chairperson reminded aspiring lawyers that the Bar Examination is an important gate in their legal journey, but does not define the entirety of it. He likewise emphasized the Supreme Court’s aim to produce ethical and competent lawyers.

Words by Ridwan Anam
Graphics by Zuleira Parra | thebarrister

17/09/2026

AMICI CURIAE DIVIDED OVER WHETHER ABSENT SENATOR-JUDGES MAY VOTE IN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS

Four retired Supreme Court magistrates — former Chief Justices Hilario Davide Jr., Artemio Panganiban, and Reynato Puno along with retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna — offered differing views on whether senator-judges who were unable to attend or substantially participate in the impeachment proceedings may still vote as members of the Impeachment Court on Wednesday, September 16.

The magistrates were invited as amici curiae to assist the Senate Impeachment Court in resolving questions on the participation of absent senator-judges.

Davide Jr., who submitted a written memorandum distinguished between senator-judges who were totally absent and those who attended but did not substantially participate. He said those who never attended any session should be deemed never to have participated in the proceedings. Meanwhile, for those who attended but did not substantially participate, Davide left the matter to their “conscience and sense of duty.”

Likewise, Panganiban opposed allowing absent senator-judges to vote solely by reviewing the record, stressing the importance of observing witnesses and assessing their demeanor, body language, tone, and spontaneity. He emphasized that meaningful participation is necessary for truth and fairness, likening absent senator-judges to those “looking at the pyramids along the Nile” or shopping in Paris while the trial continues.

Puno, meanwhile, said an absent senator-judge may still vote after reviewing the records. He cited judicial practice in which judges decide cases based on transcripts and documentary evidence, noting that personally observing a witness is not always indispensable. He also maintained that virtual testimony does not necessarily violate the right to confront witnesses.

Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, maintained that absent senator-judges should be allowed to vote, because the Impeachment Court is a “tribunal of record,” allowing senators to review transcripts and evidence before deciding.

The four magistrates’ differing views will form part of the Impeachment Court’s consideration of the voting threshold and participation of absent senator-judges. The prosecution and defense are scheduled to present arguments on the threshold issue on September 23.

Words by Myle Ysobel Bayani
Graphics by Lei Mercado | thebarrister

16/09/2026

AMICI CURIAE TACKLE IMPEACHMENT VOTING THRESHOLD

MANILA — The Senate Impeachment Court heard on Wednesday, September 16, the respective positions of former Supreme Court Chief Justices Hilario Davide, Jr., Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno, and former Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, who appeared as amici curiae, on the issue of how the constitutional two-thirds (⅔) voting requirement should be interpreted.

The central issue is Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which reads, “No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”

Davide, Jr., who served as Chief Justice from 1998 to 2003 and a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, maintained that “all members” should refer to persons who are living and physically and legally capable of discharging their duties as Senators. Although Davide could not personally appear before the Impeachment Court, his views were contained in a legal memorandum delivered by Impeachment Clerk of Court Renato Bantug.

Panganiban, who succeeded Davide as Chief Justice from 2005 to 2007, argued for a more liberal construction of the constitutional two-thirds requirement in light of the circumstances surrounding the present impeachment proceedings. The former Chief Justice rejected what he characterized as an adherence to “abstract mathematics,” arguing that the two-thirds requirement, when applied to the circumstances before the Impeachment Court, would require the concurrence of 16 Senators.

Puno, successor of Panganiban as Chief Justice from 2006 to 2009, challenged the fixed numerical interpretation of the constitutional requirement. He opined that had the framers intended to establish a fixed threshold of 16 Senators, the Constitution could have expressly stated that number. Instead, the Constitution uses the fraction “two-thirds,” which he said indicates a baseline that may require contextual and functional interpretation.

Meanwhile, former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, who served from 2002 to 2009 and was also a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, took a strict textual position on the provision. He maintained that the phrase “all the Members of the Senate” in Article XI, Section 3(6) refers to all 24 Senators, rejecting the interpretation that the requirement should instead be based on “participating members.”

It was a unanimous view for the amici curaie that the final threshold shall be determined not by the Supreme Court, but by the Impeachment Court. The Senate Impeachment Court is expected to settle the issue via a vote next week, September 23.

Words by Myle Ysobel Bayani
Graphics by Lei Mercado and Carli Recio III | thebarrister

15/09/2026

The 2026 Bar Examinations, chaired by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, concluded its three-day run on September 13, with a historic record of 12,010 examinees returning for the final day. This maintained a 99.9% examination returnee rate despite the heavy downpour of rain on the last day.

Held on September 6, 9, and 13, the examinations recorded 12,029 day one examinees, the highest first-day turnout in Bar history.

Read more: https://sbuthebarrister.com/2026/09/15/awesambar2026-sets-record-with-12010-examinees-results-out-in-january/

Words By Ella Isabel Abad, Ryan Julianne Monzon, and Karmela Melgarejo

Written by Ella Isabel Abad, Ryan Julliane Mozon, and Karmela Melgarejo MANILA – The 2026 Bar Examinations, chaired by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, concluded its three-day run on September …

14/09/2026

“DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A LEGAL EXPERT?”

In her appearance before the Senate Impeachment Court on Monday, September 14, retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang was asked by defense counsel Mark Vinluan during cross-examination whether she considered herself as a legal expert in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Cabotaje-Tang, whose public service record includes a stint as judicial assistant in the Supreme Court in 1980, three decades as Trial Attorney and later Assistant Solicitor General in the Office of the Solicitor General, and as Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice from 2013 to 2024, was presented as a prosecution witness on Day 24 of the impeachment trial to give insights on public accountability, as the prosecution focus on Article II involving alleged unexplained wealth of the Vice President.

Although the defense objected, Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Senator-Judge Francis Escudero permitted the retired Presiding Justice to appear as a witness and discuss only broad legal principles.

House prosecutor Rep. Atty. Chel Diokno explained it was necessary for Cabotaje-Tang to share the purpose and significance of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), as enunciated in the case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Valencia.

“Ang SALN ay isang notaryadong dokumento and it is also accountability framework, kaya pag nag-execute ang isang official he should do it by exercising prudence, caution, and attention doon sa details na nakasaad sa kanyang statement of assets and liabilities,” Cabotaje-Tang said.

Words by Ryan Julianne Monzon
Graphics by Ayessa Paclibare | thebarrister