Cebuano public persons these days hardly get national media attention. They’re gone from the nation’s stage: in recent history the likes of Serge and Sonny Osmeña, Eduardo Gullas, Antonio Cuenco, Pablo Garcia, Raul del Mar.
Last week though four Cebuanos landed in the national news, in a good or bad way, depending upon who, or how one, looks at the news developments.
* Gov. Gwen Garcia, Gov.-elect Pam Baricuatro: A post-election controversy has spilled over from the bruising battle in propaganda and other campaign devices to the “massive upset” that proclaimed challenger Pam Baricuatro as the new Cebu governor. “Growing evidence of fraud,” Guv Gwen said, led her to file an election protest with Comelec, accusing her opponent of cheating. Transition problems are thus worsened, with each side suspecting the other of ill-will. A running story of the David-vs.-Goliath, unknown-vs.-superstar variety, against the backdrop of Dutertes-Marcoses feud, has seized readers interest across the nation.
* Rep. Vincent Franco “Duke” Frasco: By refusing to sign a manifesto supporting House Speaker Romualdez and his continued stay as House speaker, which led to the expulsion of the Cebu congressman and deputy speaker from the National Union Party (NUP), with the party leader, NUP president Rep. L-Ray Villafuerte of Camarines Sur, calling Duke’s refusal “a blatant breach of NUP’s official position of unequivocal support” for Romualdez.
Cong Duke had to explain why he signed with other House members the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. Now he may have to explain why he did not sign with other NUP colleagues the manifesto asking for the retention of Romualdez as speaker.
* Presidential Asst. for Visayas Terence Calatrava: Calatrava was included in Cabinet Revamp 3.0. “Calatrava who?” was asked then and two details about him surfaced in December 2022: He was Tingog Party-list vice chairman and private contractor on government projects in Leyte, with a wife whose sister is the House speaker’s spouse, Rep. Yedda Mendoza-Romualdez. Now with Calatrava’s resignation accepted by President Marcos Jr., the question may be modified to: “Why, is Opav still operating? (“Naa pa diay Opav?”)”
Along with the news -- and the furor about Guv Gwen -- came the side rumor, for now, in the internet that Cong Yedda would run for Cebu governor, which Yedda’s camp reportedly has denied.
TRIAL OR NO TRIAL FOR SARA. THAT’S THE QUESTION.
What might happen: Senate President Chiz Escudero has scheduled the presentation of the House articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte on June 11, moved from June 2.
When the Senate convenes as an impeachment court, it might vote on a planned resolution seeking to dismiss the charges against the VP.
It might decide not to dismiss and instead proceed to trial -- or dismiss the complaint outright and leave the issue for the Supreme Court (SC) and/or the people to resolve.
* TRIAL: Do not abandon your constitutional duty, more than 100 faculty members of University of the Philippines College of Law have asked the Senate in an open letter. Premature dismissal, maybe even without hearing a single witness will mean the Senate “abandoning its proud tradition as an august chamber and permanently altering our system of checks and balances.”
* NO TRIAL. The Senate violated the Constitution by failing to act on the impeachment articles when the House transmitted them to the Senate on Feb. 5, 2025 -- thus argues a draft resolution calling for “constructive” or “de facto” dismissal, which Sen. Ronald de la Rosa admitted his office had drafted and circulated among the senators.
Or even if preparations for the trial are made and the trial starts, if the trial cannot be finished before the current Congress adjourns sine die on June 14, the complaints are dead in the water. Or so they argue, the pro-Sara supporters who contend the impeachment complaint cannot “cross over” from this Congress, the 19th, to the next Congress, the 20th.
On the other hand, there’s a strong basis in jurisprudence and practice in American impeachments to support the impeachment trial beyond the current Congress into the next Congress that starts June 30.
Arguments for holding the trial already, and continuing it to the next Congress:
* When must the function of impeachment trial that is a mandate of the Constitution be performed by the Senate?: “The Senate shall forthwith proceed with the trial”
* Meaning: Gonzaga vs. Norris: “within a reasonable time,” which may vary depending on circumstances. “Logistical and procedural considerations can justify a reasonable delay.” Delay must be “reasonable”
* Still, the Senate must hold the trial, not just cancel or get rid of the complaint by dismissing it. Continuing the trial in, or crossing over to, the next Congress is justified by the precept that impeachment is not a legislative function and thus not subject to the the general rule that every pending matter dies with the passing legislature.
* But if the Senate throws out the complaint without holding a trial, legal experts concede, only the SC -- or the people’s extrajudicial action -- can reverse the trial-less dismissal. Would the Senate decide to face the risk?
ULTIMATE IMPONDERABLE in the issue: How the SC and/or the people would respond to a Senate dismissal of the case without hearing the evidence.