THE political chaos consuming the country today — the Senate turmoil, the International Criminal Court (ICC) surrender of Rodrigo Duterte, the impeachment drive against Vice President Sara Duterte, the weaponization of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice (DOJ) against opposition senators, the National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) brazen disrespect for the upper house, even the Pirma-style constitutional maneuverings that surfaced early in the Marcos administration — all point to one central political obsession: the determination of the Marcos family to remain in power beyond 2028.

If only President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. would agree to let voters decide who would be president in 2028, we would have some measure of stability, which has become so important as our government needs to come up with a detailed program to respond to the severe economic depression, created by the Middle East crisis, that is coming this year.

It is so unfair for former senator Franklin Drilon to boast that the Senate when he was its president had never had its prestige deteriorate. In the three times that he was Senate president, the three presidents of the Republic (Joseph Estrada, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Benigno Aquino III) never tried to control the Senate to do its bidding to further their agenda.

THE Supreme Court’s refusal to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or even a status quo ante order in favor of Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa will go down in history as one of the high tribunal’s most astonishingly legalistic — and absurd — rulings.

The more one reads the majority ruling and the dissents, the clearer it becomes that the court elevated procedural technicalities over reality.

The ruling dated May 20 — which strangely was without a ponente or writer of a decision, with nine justices concurring and five dissenting — declared:

“There is no material and substantial invasion of Senator Dela Rosa’s rights. He was also given protective custody by the Senate in the interim, which prevented the alleged service or implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant, as well as his arrest. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. declared that he has not issued an instruction or directive to arrest Senator Dela Rosa. “Hence, Senator Dela Rosa’s claimed invasion of his purported rights is more imagined than real.”

Can’t they see that Marcos is lying through his teeth? Do they believe that National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Melvin Matibag, appointed from nowhere just four months ago, woke up one day, was told of an ICC warrant by another nobody, Antonio Trillanes IV, and decided to arrest a senator voted into office by 20 million Filipinos, even ordering his men to invade the Senate to do so?

In layman’s terms, the court is saying the Senate had shielded him from arrest by the NBI; the ICC warrant has not been implemented; and the highest level of the executive branch, represented by president, did not issue any instructions to arrest him.

So, there’s nothing to issue a restraining order against, the Supreme Court is saying.

THE International Criminal Court (ICC) case accusing former president Rodrigo Duterte, as well as Sen. Ronaldo (“Bato”) de la Rosa and several others, is a colossal deception. Worse, going by the latest Feb. 26, 2026 prosecutor’s charge sheet, included in the indictment are Sen. Christopher (“Bong”) Go, Duterte’s justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre, and six other police officials who worked under the former president.

That so many, especially in mainstream media, are so gullible as to fall for this deception is not really surprising, as there have been several huge hoaxes which also created hysterical mobs like those we see now in the case of Bato’s escape:

– The 1968 Corregidor “massacre” that turned out to be then-senator Benigno Aquino Jr.’s fabrication in order to unmask President Marcos’ plan to foment chaos in Sabah;

– Marcos’ Sr.’s claim that he imposed martial law “to save the Republic” from the Left and the Right;

– The impeachment of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona, purportedly because he was corrupt but which was actually President Benigno Aquino III’s operation to remove him so that the Yellow president’s Cojuangco clan could get billions of pesos in compensation for its Hacienda Luisita being put under agrarian reform;

– And very recently Marcos Jr.’s claim in 2024 that his administration completed 5,500 flood control projects, which were later revealed to be ghost projects through which contractors and government officials, including members of Congress, pocketed at least P200 billion.

I find it so sad that our chattering class and even the intellectual elite have easily fallen for this newest hoax, when hard facts easily reveal it as a fabrication.

Last of three parts

FOR nearly three decades now, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has wrapped itself in the lofty rhetoric of universal justice, accountability and humanity’s supposedly highest moral aspirations.

Yet the arrest and coming trial of former president Rodrigo Duterte, and now the looming threats against Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, expose a disturbing reality increasingly acknowledged not only by critics of the court but by respected international law scholars themselves: The ICC may be stretching its powers beyond what its founding treaty actually permits.

The big question is straightforward: Can the ICC still exercise criminal jurisdiction over a country that has already withdrawn from the Rome Statute? The ICC says “yes.” But many legal scholars — and even dissenting ICC judges — argue otherwise, that that notion is even absurd and trampling on Philippine sovereignty.

THE more I study materials on the International Criminal Court (ICC), the more I find the case so utterly absurd, an abomination, an entirely propaganda-propelled fabrication.

The ICC was created in the aftermath of humanity’s worst nightmares in recent times, the result of civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa — genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass extermination, systematic rape campaigns, and recruitment of child soldiers.

All of the five persons accused and convicted by the ICC as well as those still undergoing trial were warlords in these African countries where the institutions of civilization had not taken root, where warlords contended with other rivals to capture state power.

PRESIDENT Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s plot to oust Vice President Sara Duterte, launched in 2023 when their alliance fell apart, has been foiled.

The Marcos-led conspiracy to have Sara removed from her post and ban her from running for the presidency through impeachment has been thwarted, with the removal of his minion Sen. Vicente Sotto III as Senate president and the installation of staunch Sara supporter Alan Cayetano, decided by 13 senators — the majority of the 24-member upper chamber.

If ever the Senate convenes as an impeachment court, it will be the same 13 who will vote to acquit her. With the political winds most likely to convince the two senators who abstained in the voting — Miguel Zubiri and JV Ejercito — it will be 15 voting to acquit Sara, more than the nine that is constitutionally required for such acquittal.

ARTIFICIAL intelligence, or AI, refers to computer systems designed to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence — understanding language, analyzing information, recognizing patterns, drawing inferences, and generating written or spoken responses.

What makes AI an extraordinarily powerful analytical tool is its ability to rapidly process huge volumes of data, detect patterns and relationships that humans may overlook, and integrate information from many fields into a single analysis. While AIs are certainly not infallible — there are even instances in which they “hallucinate” or invent sources — they are extremely advanced probabilistic assistants. One advantage of AI is that its analyses are not biased, unlike those of columnists, because of their political or financial persuasions. I asked nine AI assistants (also called “chatbots” or platforms) to answer the following question: “Will the Senate find Vice President Sara guilty in the impeachment trial?” Out of the nine, three refused to answer since they claimed it was a speculative question. Six replied that Sara will be acquitted. None said she will be found guilty. The AI assistants’ take: