The Pinoy Street Lawyer Official

The Pinoy Street Lawyer Official While the original page was hacked in 2024, the mission continues 🙏

This is a wellness, law advocacy and online public service educational discourse platform intended for the marginalised and established during the infancy stages of social media in 2011.

03/10/2026

Kwentong Barbero 😎

02/10/2026

� WATCH LIVE | Atty. DJ: Ano ang Totoong Isyu sa Bank Secrecy, Impeachment, at China Question?

Usapang Impeachment — mga tanong, batas, at isyung dapat pag-usapan.

� Kasama si Atty. DJ

Like, Share, Comment, and Follow

10 Years After the WPS Arbitral Award Looking out across the waters surrounding Taiwan, one cannot help but notice a cal...
26/09/2026

10 Years After the WPS Arbitral Award

Looking out across the waters surrounding Taiwan, one cannot help but notice a calm, steady resolve despite living directly under the constant shadow of a superpower.

Today, 10 years after the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award, the recent red carpet welcome and warm exchanges between US' Donald Trump and China's Xi Jinping remind us of a similar reality. That super powers will always pursue their own interests and we, as a nation should remain calm too with steady resolve with what we fight for.

The US and China may compete, but they can also negotiate and make deals. The question for the Philippines now is where does that leave us, and more importantly, our fishermen? Who should protect the Filipino fishermen?

The West Philippine Sea is not just a geopolitical chessboard. It is where Filipino fishermen earn their living and feed their families.

A handshake between Trump and Xi cannot guarantee that a Filipino fisherman can safely fish in Scarborough Shoal, Ayungin Shoal, or other areas within Philippine maritime entitlements.

The 2016 Arbitral Award remains an important legal foundation under UNCLOS. But a balanced legal view also recognizes that the Award did not decide every sovereignty issue or ownership of every feature in the South China Sea. China has rejected the Award and continues to assert its own claims.

For the Philippines, however, the real challenge after ten years is turning the legal rights into real protection at sea, safer fishing grounds, respect for Philippine maritime rights, and a fisherman who can go to sea without fear and return home safely.

While Philippines should maintain strong ties with the US, it should further strengthen its partnerships with Japan, Australia, ASEAN, and others. Multilateral negotiations with China and others affected remain a stronger option than a bilateral talk. Our leaders should also continue to work with great powers without allowing our national interests to depend on their bargains.

The US and China may negotiate their own interests and the Philippines must protect ours. Because at the end of the day, the West Philippine Sea is not about red carpets or diplomatic photographs.

It is about the Filipino fisherman who needs to fish today and come home safely tonight.

Happy 10th anniversary of our 2016 Arbitral Victory! Huge salute to our fisherfolk, the Philippine Coast Guard, armed forces, diplomats, and every Filipino who continues to champion a free, peaceful, and sovereign West Philippine Sea.

Patuloy po natin ang pakikipaglaban sa West Philippine Seas, sa Diwa sa Salita at Gawa 💪

26/09/2026

The Conviction Threshold and the ICC Update

(c) D8TV 🫶

25/09/2026

Watch Atty. DJ on D8TV as he discusses the Senate voting threshold and the ICC. �

Tune in and stay informed. Like, Share, Comment & Subscribe!

24/09/2026

Salamat 105.1 Brigada News FM Manila sa panayam at pagkakataong malayang maipaliwanag ang mga posibilidad na maaaring tanggihan ng Korte Suprema at maari rin naman desisyunan pabor ang anumang petisyon depende na lamang sa mga legal na konsiderasyon!

No Injury, No Case (As Yet)Is Judicial Intervention on the Two-Thirds Vote a Political Question or a Justiciable Questio...
23/09/2026

No Injury, No Case (As Yet)

Is Judicial Intervention on the Two-Thirds Vote a Political Question or a Justiciable Question?

A political question refers to an issue that involves policy wisdom, political discretion, or matters constitutionally committed to the sole determination of the legislative or executive branch, making it beyond the purview of the judiciary. In contrast, a justiciable question involves an actual case or controversy regarding enforceable legal rights or constitutional boundaries, which courts are duty-bound to resolve through the power of judicial review.

After the Senate debate on the constitutional two-thirds requirement, a bigger question now arises. Can or should the Supreme Court intervene while the impeachment trial is still ongoing?

At this stage, the stronger argument is that the issue may still be premature. Courts generally do not decide hypothetical disputes or issue advisory opinions. Until the Senate actually implements a reduced voting threshold and renders a conviction based on fewer than 16 votes, there may be no concrete injury yet to review.

Under Article VIII, Section 1, judicial review requires an actual case or controversy, proper standing, timely presentation of the constitutional issue, and lis mota, meaning the constitutional question must be essential to the resolution of the case.

The Senate may also argue that determining its procedures and conducting an impeachment trial fall within its constitutional authority to “try and decide all cases of impeachment.”

However, this does not necessarily place the Senate beyond judicial review. As held in Francisco v. House of Representatives and Duterte v. House of Representatives, constitutional limits on impeachment proceedings may still present a justiciable question.

Thus, there may be a distinction between “not yet ripe” and “not reviewable.” While the trial is ongoing, the dispute may remain largely an internal Senate matter. But if the Senate ultimately convicts on fewer than 16 votes as previously decreed in Bayan v. Zamora (in relation to 2/3 votes), the issue becomes concrete and judicially reviewable.

In short, a political question today may become a justiciable constitutional controversy tomorrow, which of course will also depend on what the Senate Impeachment Court ultimately does as a whole and only if and when the matter will not be overtaken by events or rendered moot.




19/09/2026

Back to Bike 🫶

18/09/2026

� LIVE TONIGHT | SENATORS BATO, MARCOLETA AT JINGGOY: DI NA NGA BA MAKAKASALI SA IMPEACHMENT???

May bagong usapin na naman sa impeachment proceedings. �

Sina Senators Bato, Marcoleta at Jinggoy, maaari pa nga ba silang makilahok sa impeachment? Ano ang sinasabi ng batas tungkol dito, at ano ang magiging epekto sa proceedings?

� Atty. DJ Jimenez breaks down the legal issues and questions surrounding the matter.

� Like • � Comment • � Subscribe • � Share

The 2/3 Threshold versus Decoupling of Penalties in ImpeachmentBagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora [ G.R. No. 138570, O...
16/09/2026

The 2/3 Threshold versus Decoupling of Penalties in Impeachment

Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora [ G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000 ] in its En Banc ruling decreed as follows:

"As to the matter of voting, Section 21, Article VII particularly requires that a treaty or international agreement, to be valid and effective, must be concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. On the other hand, Section 25, Article XVIII simply provides that the treaty be "duly concurred in by the Senate."

Applying the foregoing constitutional provisions, a two-thirds vote of all the members of the Senate is clearly required so that the concurrence contemplated by law may be validly obtained and deemed present. While it is true that Section 25, Article XVIII requires, among other things, that the treaty-the VFA, in the instant case-be "duly concurred in by the Senate," it is very true however that said provision must be related and viewed in light of the clear mandate embodied in Section 21, Article VII, which in more specific terms, requires that the concurrence of a treaty, or international agreement, be made by a two -thirds vote of all the members of the Senate. Indeed, Section 25, Article XVIII must not be treated in isolation to section 21, Article, VII.

###

Under these circumstances, the charter provides that the Senate shall be composed of twenty-four (24) Senators. Without a tinge of doubt, two-thirds (2/3) of this figure, or not less than sixteen (16) members, favorably acting on the proposal is an unquestionable compliance with the requisite number of votes mentioned in Section 21 of Article VII. The fact that there were actually twenty-three (23) incumbent Senators at the time the voting was made,[31] will not alter in any significant way the circumstance that more than two-thirds of the members of the Senate concurred with the proposed VFA, even if the two-thirds vote requirement is based on this figure of actual members (23). In this regard, the fundamental law is clear that two-thirds of the 24 Senators, or at least 16 favorable votes, suffice so as to render compliance with the strict constitutional mandate of giving concurrence to the subject treaty."

Following this ruling where there were only 23 active Senators then, the threshold may be argued to remain at 16 Senators active or not, be it conviction threshold or ratification of treaties. Unless revisited by the Supreme Court, arguing against this rule remains a legal challenge and may be regarded more as a politcal expediency. Altertantively, decoupling of penalties may be more viable, legally and politically.



Address

Manila

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Pinoy Street Lawyer Official posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to The Pinoy Street Lawyer Official:

Shortcuts

Share