was intended to be a moral crucible

Duterte’s impeachment illustrates how the moral framing of impeachment’s constitutional design is transitioning to pure political strategy. The articulation is crucial because while impeachment’s political utility is not in doubt, it was not intended to be a strategic tool. Rather, like in the United States, it was intended to be a moral crucible — a ‘national inquest into the conduct of public men’, before a Senate that is ‘sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent’. The accusation of a betrayal of public trust, one of the grounds for Duterte’s impeachment, is a special legal concept that significantly affects Philippine politics. The Constitution’s framers intended this ground to be a ‘catchall phrase’ for any acts that make an official unfit for office. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Constitution sets no specific standards and that these matters were truly ‘political questions’ — better suited for Congress to decide than the courts. สล็อต เว็บตรง