Behind the scenes, it’s poker night.

As public outrage brews over flood control controversies and the drumbeat for impeachment grows louder, insiders say the real action isn’t in hearings or headlines — it’s in quiet conversations, closed doors, and carefully played hands between the Upper Chamber and the Palace.

Chips are on the table, and everyone’s bluffing.

According to a source of THEPHILBIZNEWS who let slip more than intended, one official recently took a “graceful exit” to another department — a polite way of stepping away from a table that had become too uncomfortable to sit at.

Why?

Because the game, apparently, is no longer subtle.

Players in the Upper Chamber are said to be flashing numbers — not always on record, but enough to make the Palace pay attention. Enough to suggest that those entangled in the flood control mess may not just survive — they may come out stronger, with a clearer path to the next election cycle.

And then came the whisper that changed the stakes.

Proceed with impeachment, the Palace was allegedly told, and watch the flood control investigations quietly stall. Push the wrong move, and the cards will be reshuffled — not in your favor.

A bluff?

Or a winning hand already dealt?

Inside the Palace, nerves are beginning to show. Because if the so-called “top contender” returns to power in 2028, today’s decision-makers may find themselves answering very different questions.

Some insiders want to play it straight — let the investigations run, follow the evidence, call the hand.

Others appear to be folding early.

If, in the coming weeks, the flood control probe suddenly loses momentum, don’t expect an announcement. Don’t expect an explanation.

In this kind of game, silence is the signal.

Because when the chips are high and the players are familiar, outcomes are rarely accidental.

After all, in politics — as in poker — there’s always an understanding among those at the table.

Not written. Not spoken. But always played.

The upheaval caused the ouster of both the Senate President and the House Speaker, revealing the former’s hidden loyalties that stunned insiders. The political musical chairs raged and committee chairs got reshuffled.

But the real headline? BTS (Bulldog-tenacious senator) might have just over-played himself.

At the Senate, BTS kept up the act of a relentless interrogator. But the internet and insiders alike asked the same question: Why defend those accused of siphoning trillions from public flood control projects instead of protecting Filipino taxpayers?

Sources tell THEPHILBIZNEWS that BTS allegedly made a secret deal with the accused. BTS reportedly took a downpayment, which he quickly burned on luxury cars — an ostentatious display of wealth that should set off alarm bells at the Office of the Ombudsman.

Now, with the downpayment gone and his alleged dealings under scrutiny, BTS seems to be doubling down, presumably to cover his tracks.

In a scandal about missing billions and submerged communities, the floodwaters are no longer just in our streets — they’re rising in the halls of power. And if BTS thought bluster could outrun suspicion, the tide may be turning. In politics, as in floods, what goes around eventually comes around. #

This past weekend, the infamous speech at the plenary given by Sen. Robinhood Padilla last January 26 has kept flashing across my social media walls. I hadn’t given that speech much attention two weeks ago since I don’t afford him much attention, really — at least not enough to write a column about him.

But on second thought, the gall of a Filipino senator using precious Senate time to scold the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) spokesperson, Commodore Jay Tarriela, and lecture the PCG itself to a point of suggesting cowardice is appalling.

‘Di bale na kung tawagin din ako ni Sen. Binoy na “pangit,” as he did former political adviser to the late former president Noynoy Aquino, Ronald Llamas. But to me, mas pangit yung ginawa niyang pagtayo sa Senado para upakan ang PCG as if they were the same hoodlums he beat up in his old movies.

His tone, language, and the decision to put it all on record in a nationally televised privilege speech are beyond unsettling. Imagine a senator, amid China’s bullying of smaller, outnumbered Philippine vessels, daring to suggest that our guardians at sea are cowards.

Imagine him, the No. 1 elected senator in 2022, feeding bravado by urging the PCG to buy stronger water cannons and water-bomb Chinese coast guard ships. Imagine him publicly scolding Tarriela — the spokesperson who has stood his ground for years, defending our maritime territory and the men and women who risk their lives in the open sea.

If Tarriela is “inappropriate,” then what does that make the senator’s own performance before the nation?

Let’s explain this plainly. First: the PCG does not respond to water-cannon attacks with water cannons. They outmaneuver Chinese vessels — sometimes five at a time — trying to trap them or provoke a violent reaction. That is not cowardice. That is discipline under pressure. Second: the PCG does not retaliate because it is bound by national security policy and the President’s order of maximum tolerance. That is not weakness. That is resolve — defending territory while refusing to be dragged into illegal escalation.

Water cannons on PCG ships are not weapons of harassment; they are safety tools — to put out fires, to save lives at sea. Hindi po ito pelikula. China wants provocation. It wants the PCG to react illegally to justify further aggression. Feeding that script only weakens the Philippines.

This is not about courage versus cowardice. It is about ignorance versus responsibility. And it is not just Padilla. When senators like Padilla and Marcoleta posture as “peacemakers” while undermining our legal, diplomatic, and maritime position, they serve China’s ends — not the Philippines’. And it’s easy to read through all the overacting to mask their real intentions.

They weaken our standing, dilute our resolve, and cloak it all in the language of de-escalation. The PCG is doing its duty — quietly, bravely, lawfully. The real overacting is in the Senate. And Filipinos will eventually see it for what it is: unpatriotic, un-Filipino, and dangerously irresponsible — if not betrayal.

*         *         *

SHORT BURSTS. For comments or reactions, email firingline@ymail.com or tweet @Side_View via X app (formerly Twitter). Read current and past issues of this column at https://www.thephilbiznews.com

The new Ombudsman, former Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla, could well be on his first bold strike as the new sheriff in town. Last October 22, Remulla ordered a sweeping purge within his new office, directing 80 senior officials to submit courtesy resignations and asking 204 newly hired employees to reapply for their posts.

The order targets those suspected to be “midnight appointees,” mostly from the final days of the previous administration. For now, they are to keep working while under review. It sounds bold. It even looks brave.

Duterte supporters, however, doubt whether he is after real reform or just a gritty performance for the cameras. They ask: What’s really under review here? Well, they claim, essentially, it’s not the persons holding the posts under investigation per se, but the grip and influence of the old Duterte administration on the office.

To be fair to Remulla, this shake-up of the office is direly needed, if only to erase the perception that the Ombudsman has been too lenient with crooks in government under former President Rodrigo Duterte. Note that under Ombudsman Samuel Martires — Duterte’s appointee — silence became the currency of survival.

This was the ombudsman who perfected the art of doing nothing. If I may borrow words from the Editorial of an online publication (ThePhilBizNews). Martires might seem like the epitome of cloaking submission as discretion and complicity as confidentiality. What he called prudence was Duterte’s Omerta — a pact of silence that buried accountability and betrayed the people the office was sworn to protect.

Now enter the twist: the Joel Villanueva case. In 2016, then-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales dismissed Villanueva for misuse of ₱10 million in pork barrel funds – a ghost farm product-purchasing project in Region 11.

The Senate, invoking separation of powers, banded together and refused to enforce the ruling through a legal opinion pushed by Sen. Tito Sotto.

Then, as Remulla came in, he vowed to revive the order dismissing Villanueva as the penalty Morales had found fit for his administrative folly. But Remulla backpedaled, announcing he would no longer write to the now SenatePresident Sotto.

Why? Because he discovered that there was nothing to revive. Yes! Martires did two acts on Villanueva’s case that exemplified the accusations against him as Ombudsman – a shield for the powerful and a silencer of whistleblowers.

First, Martires dismissed in 2019 the criminal component of the charges against Villanueva, contrary to findings in the administrative investigation. And second, since his act did not dissolve the penalty in the administrative case already ruled on by Morales, he quietly reversed the dismissal order himself. That act is what now keeps Villanueva, and perhaps many others, free of consequence.

Now, Remulla shocks us with another revelation: that he’s battled leukemia. After surviving open-heart surgery, he faced blood cancer, and now finds his newfound health a reason for him to remain in office. For that, this corner offers no cynicism — only respect and a wish that his full recovery prevails.

Still, if he truly means to restore integrity, may he not wield justice like a sword meant only for the Marcoses’ enemies. The test of courage isn’t in cleansing the house of rivals; it’s in cleaning up your own house.

*    *    *

SHORT BURSTS. For comments or reactions, email firingline@ymail.com or tweet @Side_View via X app (formerly Twitter). Read current and past issues of this column at https://www.thephilbiznews.com

The bill, which aims to establish a legal framework for nuclear power utilization, was approved on June 10 despite mounting concerns from environmental and civil society groups.

Greenpeace campaigner Khevin Yu condemned the move, calling it “reckless and rushed,” and accused lawmakers of disregarding public safety, environmental integrity, and historical lessons from past nuclear disasters.

“Nuclear energy is dangerous. No matter how many promised safety measures are put in place, the truth remains: nuclear accidents can and do happen,” Yu said, citing the catastrophic meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima. “To ignore these disasters is to gamble with the lives of millions of Filipinos and the health of our environment for generations to come.”

Nuclear energy not cheaper, would make PH more dependent on foreign suppliers

The group also disputed claims that nuclear energy is a cost-effective solution to the country’s power needs.

According to Yu, nuclear power is one of the most expensive sources of energy, with a levelized cost of electricity ranging from $140 to $222 per megawatt-hour—far higher than the $29 to $92 per MWh range for renewable energy sources.

“Adding nuclear to our already import-dependent energy mix would only increase our vulnerability to foreign interests, putting communities at greater risk,” Yu added.

Instead, Greenpeace urged the government to invest in the country’s abundant and indigenous renewable energy resources, such as solar, wind, and hydro power. The group emphasized that these safer and cleaner options are more sustainable and economically viable in the long run.

Greenpeace is calling on the Senate to repeal the bill before implementation begins and urged President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to abandon the country’s nuclear ambitions in favor of a full transition to renewable energy.

“This is a crossroads moment for our country’s energy future,” Yu said. “We can either choose a dangerous, outdated technology or embrace a safer, more sustainable path powered by renewables.”

Watching the recent convening of the impeachment court—amid a period marked by intense procedural debate—revealed a critical test of the Philippine Senate’s fidelity to impartiality, due process, and the Constitution itself.

While the formal swearing-in of Senate President Chiz Escudero and the subsequent seating of the senator-judges signal procedural progress, the actions and pronouncements that preceded it have cast a long shadow over the credibility of the entire process.

For example, Senator Robin Padilla was quoted on June 4 stating, “I will never abandon President Duterte,”—a declaration that reflects more than just political sympathy. Such a statement, made before the presentation of any evidence, severely compromises the expectation of judicial neutrality.

Similarly, Senator Ronald dela Rosa has publicly referred to the impeachment proceedings as a “political demolition job,” raising further concerns about pre-judgment.

The conduct of Senators Padilla, Dela Rosa, and Francis Tolentino demands close examination.

Senator Padilla’s public declarations, suggesting his readiness to share in the fate of former President Duterte, and Senator Dela Rosa’s similarly defiant rhetoric, reflect a worrying disregard for the boundaries of their constitutional role.

These are not mere expressions of opinion; they betray an active alignment with a political figure at the center of a legal proceeding they are meant to judge with neutrality.

Senator Tolentino’s attempts to obstruct the convening of the court are even more troubling. On June 5, Tolentino questioned the “validity of the trial rules” already adopted by the Senate, a move widely criticized by legal experts as a delay tactic.

The Philippine Bar Association referred to his actions as a “deliberate stalling maneuver inconsistent with the obligations of an officer of the court.” Unlike Padilla or Dela Rosa, whose lack of legal training might offer a limited explanation, Tolentino is a lawyer. His actions represent not ignorance, but a calculated effort to undermine a constitutional process. His eventual removal from the impeachment court was a necessary correction—but one that does not fully resolve the deeper issue of partisan influence seeping into a space that demands objectivity and ethical clarity.

The moment now calls for the highest standards of judicial integrity from our senator-judges. Their sworn duty requires them to apply the law fairly, examine evidence without prejudice, and set aside political allegiances in favor of the public interest.

The question is no longer whether Senators Padilla, Dela Rosa, and Tolentino understand the gravity of their roles—it is whether they are willing to honor their oath above personal loyalty. Their conduct thus far strongly suggests a prioritization of political ties over constitutional responsibility.

The principle of inhibition, rooted in ethics and voluntary self-restraint, is not a sign of weakness but a mark of respect for the rule of law. In the 2012 impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, senators were called to inhibit when prior public statements or affiliations cast doubt on their impartiality.

Then—as now—calls for recusal were not an attempt to silence, but to safeguard the institution’s credibility.

For Senators Padilla and Dela Rosa, recusal from the trial would be the clearest expression of respect for institutional integrity. If they remain, their presence will cast a long shadow over any verdict rendered, regardless of outcome.

This impeachment trial is not merely a question of one person’s guilt or innocence—it is a measure of the Senate’s moral capacity to rise above faction and protect the nation’s faith in its institutions.

Ultimately, this moment must serve as a catalyst for reform. The clear risk of political bias compromising judicial proceedings underscores the urgent need for stronger institutional safeguards—both within the Senate and across government.

Ethical guidelines must be strengthened, transparency enforced, and clear consequences established for partisan overreach.

While recent surveys have shown public satisfaction with the Senate’s performance, satisfaction alone cannot substitute for trust in its impartiality—especially in moments of constitutional gravity. What is at stake in an impeachment court is not popularity, but credibility. To preserve the integrity of our democracy, public officials must act not as partisans, but as guardians of the rule of law.

The long-term health of the Republic rests not on the power of personalities, but on the collective will of those in public office to uphold the law without fear or favor. In this trial, the senator-judges are not merely deciding a legal case—they are revealing, in full view of the nation, whether the Senate still commands the trust it is duty-bound to earn.

The Makati Business Club (MBC) has added its influential voice to the growing chorus urging the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court and begin the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

“We view this issue as a governance issue and a test of public accountability and the rule of law,” MBC said in a statement released Monday, June 9, 2025.  

“If we do not follow the rule of law, how can we expect to attract foreign and even local investors to bring in long term investments, which would lead to the creation of jobs?” said a leading group of top executives and industry leaders.

MBC said the trial is necessary to allow both the presentation of evidence and a venue for the Vice President to defend herself.

“The Senators, individually, and the Senate, as an institution, will betray public trust and not provide the Vice President with the forum to refute charges if they do not proceed with the impeachment trial,” the group said.

MBC’s statement comes amid a wave of strongly worded public appeals from academic institutions, law schools, political science scholars, and student councils across the country—who have similarly demanded that the Senate uphold its constitutional responsibility.

Students and faculty from nine academic institutions—spanning universities, a senior high school, and a nationwide school network—have issued a unified call for the Senate leadership to immediately proceed with the impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte.

In separate but coordinated statements, they warned that delaying or dismissing the constitutional process would erode democratic institutions and betray public trust. Among the signatories are respected former Supreme Court justices, a framer of the 1987 Constitution, law school deans, and faculty of political science and development studies.

From the Lasallian Family in the Philippines to the San Beda Senior High School Student Council, the message was consistent and unequivocal: Uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

“We raise our collective voice in strong condemnation of any and all efforts—covert or overt—to prematurely discard or obstruct the constitutional process of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte,” the Lasallian Family said.

“The impeachment process is not merely a political exercise; it is a sacred mechanism enshrined in the 1987 Constitution to ensure that the highest public officials remain answerable to the people they serve,” added the network of 16 schools from Manila to Bacolod to Surigao del Sur.

They reminded senators that they are “guardians of the Republic’s integrity,” warning that cutting short the impeachment process would not only be a disservice to justice but “a betrayal of public trust.”

Adding to the chorus of concern, a group of scholars from the fields of Political Science and Development Studies also released a powerful statement denouncing the Senate’s continued inaction.

“We express our deep disgust and grave concern over the protracted delay in convening the Senate as an Impeachment Court to try the case against Vice President Sara Duterte,” the scholars declared.

“The continued inaction not only erodes public trust in our democratic institutions but also makes a mockery of the mechanisms for accountability enshrined in our Constitution. The deliberate foot-dragging reflects an active political maneuvering using a democratic institution that is meant to secure accountability, specifically of a high government official alleged to have committed high crimes and betrayed public trust,” they added.

The Ateneo School of Government echoed this sentiment, calling the impeachment a “sacred duty.” “Dispensing the case without the benefit of a trial is a dereliction of duty and a clear attempt to whitewash the accusations raised against a public official,” its faculty said, emphasizing that the Senate must “convene the impeachment court now.”

Faculty from San Beda University’s Graduate School of Law, including former Supreme Court Justices Adolf Azcuna and Jose Vitug, and law deans Antonio La Viña and Fr. Ranhilio Aquino, stressed: “The Senate must proceed with the trial. An undue delay sends the signal that mandated processes are thwarted for ulterior ends.” (Azcuna also served as a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and was vice chair of its legislative committee.)

Student councils joined the call. The University of Santo Tomas Central Student Council called the allegations against Duterte—including the misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds and the so-called Piattos fiasco—a blatant violation of public trust that must not go unexamined. “Now more than ever, it is crucial to rise in collective action, defend our democratic institutions, and ensure that no public official is above the law,” the UST CSC said.

The Benilde School of Diplomacy and Governance emphasized that impeachment is not about partisanship but about restoring democratic norms. “It’s about the greater good prevailing over partisan politics and blind idolatry,” they said, noting they stand “with the majority of the Filipino people in their clamor to uphold the 1987 Philippine Constitution.”

A recent nationwide survey revealed that nine in 10 Filipinos want the impeachment trial to proceed.

The Philippine Law School faculty explained the constitutional basis for proceeding with the trial despite a change in Congress, noting that impeachment is a non-legislative function. “A trial is not a matter of numbers; it is a matter of national integrity,” they said. “For in moments such as these, it is not comfort that history remembers, but conscience.” Philippine Law School Dean Jose A. Grapilon was among the signatories.

Student councils from San Beda University, including its Senior High School unit, described the delay as a betrayal of justice, transparency, and democratic integrity. “We demand that [our lawmakers] put the interest of the Filipino people above political allyship and power,” the San Beda SHS Student Council declared.

A particularly stinging message came from the PUP College of Political Science and Public Administration Student Council, which warned, “Democracy doesn’t just die overnight—it’s chipped away by leaders who bend the rules, dodge accountability, and put loyalty over the law.”

The coordinated public statements represent a rare, cross-sectoral intervention from the country’s business, academic, and student communities on a single, highly charged political issue—underscoring the gravity with which they view the delayed impeachment trial.

In February, the House of Representatives transmitted the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte after securing the constitutional one-third requirement. Senate President Francis Escudero has since delayed the trial’s opening to June 11, citing legislative priorities—a move critics fear could indefinitely stall or quietly bury the process.

“We support the aspirations of the government for a more developed nickel industry; however, an export ban is not a timely policy at the moment,” said PNIA President Atty. Dante R. Bravo.

He said government needs to first create a business-friendly environment to attract investments and enable value-added processing.

“A proposal like the ore export ban is appealing, but if implemented now, it overlooks regulatory and business challenges that make value-added processing difficult in the Philippines,” Bravo said.

Bravo pointed to Indonesia’s successful ore ban, which significantly increased its export value of nickel products. However, he stressed that Indonesia implemented the policy only after securing investors, infrastructure, and strong government support.

“It takes over ten years to approve mining permits in the Philippines, forcing investors to look elsewhere,” Bravo said. “If we want to replicate Indonesia’s success, we need to address these fundamental issues first.”

PNIA warned that forcing value-added processing without addressing regulatory burdens and infrastructure gaps could lead to mine closures, job losses, and reduced government revenues.

Industry leaders argue that the five-year transition period under Senate Bill No. 2826 may not be enough to develop the necessary processing infrastructure.

“Without holistic government support, an export ban at this time would slow progress and risk industry failure,” Bravo said.

He also highlighted geopolitical and market factors, including rising competition from other nickel-producing countries and shifts in global demand.

China, the primary buyer of Philippine nickel ore, could turn to alternative suppliers if the ban proceeds.

PNIA reiterated its support for strengthening the mining sector but urged the government to focus on improving the investment climate first.

“Instead of imposing restrictions prematurely, the focus should be on creating a competitive business environment to ensure long-term industry sustainability,” Bravo said.

How many of you share this experience on TikTok — sheer joy, then sadness so depressing all of a sudden? Yup, short videos can do that.

One of the heights of laughter that kept my funny bones trembling was a collection of clips one commenter tagged as “the senators who should not have been elected.”

Featured in that barrage of videos were the blunders at the session hall and press conferences of the honorables — Robinhood Padilla and Lito Lapid.

But soon I came across another medley of clips of candidates for senator in May’s midterm polls. The theme was the same: stupidity at its funniest — this time, featuring Philip Salvador, Willie Revillame, Bong Revilla, and Lito Lapid.

But instead of making me laugh, this TikTok video dropped me into the pits of sadness that I had to abandon my phone on the nightstand.

Well, three of them are in the Magic 12. Let’s just watch Netflix.

Comelec rules — really?

The campaign season is officially here, and the Commission on Elections (Comelec) wants everyone to behave — no campaigning at 2 a.m., no oversized posters, and no reckless spending.

Candidates have 90 days, 120 minutes per TV station, and P3 per voter to convince the public. Sounds orderly, right? Except, of course, that these rules have already been spectacularly broken — weeks and months ago.

Comelec Chairman George M. Garcia can plead all he wants, but let’s face it: premature campaigning is the electoral equivalent of jaywalking in Manila — technically illegal, but everyone does it.

The Supreme Court has essentially declared that “premature campaigning” doesn’t exist, so Comelec’s stern warnings are about what — wishful thinking?

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, Sir Garcia, EDSA and all other major thoroughfares have weeks ago and months ago been dotted with campaign posters the size of the Comelec Building façade. So, who are we kidding?

*         *         *

SHORT BURSTS. For comments or reactions, email firingline@ymail.com or tweet @Side_View via X app (formerly Twitter). Read current and past issues of this column at http://www.thephilbiznews.com

How lucky we are, indeed, to have a transportation chief who is not a half-wit as the guy calling the shots at the MMDA.

Transportation Secretary Jaime Bautista made it clear at the end of the week that the EDSA Bus Carousel — the exclusive bus lane that has made commuting faster and erased corner stop obstructions — will not only be maintained but also enhanced.

This was the Department of Transportation’s (DOTr) clapback at MMDA Chair Romando Artes’s worst idea since birth. Only in the MMDA would you find a guy who thinks a mass transport solution should be threatened in favor of more traffic.

The EDSA Busway moves nearly 200,000 passengers daily. He has the numbers yet this wise guy floats the idea of removing it because private cars need more space.

I won’t be joining the chorus of netizens cursing at him, but perhaps I can give some advice: Go home and plant kamote!

Trial by Senate

Since we’re dishing out advice today, how about this: If the Senate is serious about booting Vice President Sara Duterte, they better get moving really fast.

Citing the law, seasoned election lawyer Romulo Macalintal says the Senate must conclude the impeachment trial before the 19th Congress adjourns on June 6, 2025. Otherwise, the next Senate can treat it as if it never happened.

The way our law works, exactly, is that there will be no trial left to judge once the new senators and congressmen elected in May convene for the next Congress.

Political analysts believe the Senate should convene as an impeachment court during the congressional break. They argue that the 1987 Constitution demands urgency or, more specifically, mandates the Senate to “proceed forthwith” once the articles of impeachment are transmitted.

Yet, Senate President Francis Escudero contends that they are barred by law from doing so during recess, suggesting a wait until June.

Delay can be the greatest gift senators can give to Inday Sara. If they drag their feet, they may as well kill the impeachment now and save everyone the theatrics.

Pilato Gadon

Presidential Adviser on Poverty Alleviation Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon is now washing his hands of the Dutertes — Pontius Pilate style.

Suddenly, he remembers that the Dutertes were never political juggernauts, claiming that Rodrigo Duterte only won in 2016 because Marcos loyalists had no better option. As for Sara? He pegs her at a measly 5 million votes.

Gadon’s message is clear: he backed the UniTeam for Marcos, not her. Now, there’s a true-blooded Marcos loyalist for you.

*         *         *

SHORT BURSTS. For comments or reactions, email firingline@ymail.com or tweet @Side_View via X. Read current and past issues of this column at http://www.thephilbiznews.com