It is clear as day that the Duterte forces are pulling out all the stops to derail the impeachment process against Inday Sara. As I stated in the previous issue, Sara Duterte is sweating bullets and is in panic mode, fearing that an impeachment trial could expose her bank accounts — an outcome that would spell game over for the bully.

Sara Duterte and her minions are employing the well-worn playbook of the simultaneous use of diversion, deception, and legal maneuvering — all designed to manipulate the political narrative to their advantage.

First off, the famed criminal lawyer Atty. Ferdinand Topacio has been busy the past two weeks filing bite-size (no pun intended) counter-complaints against House leaders at the Ombudsman. It’s a classic move — accuse the accusers, spread the blame, and create enough chaos to confuse the public.

Then there’s the use of troll farms to manufacture public support. Sara Duterte herself orchestrated this, pretending to discourage supporters from attending street rallies and urging them to just work and protest on social media instead. The truth? Her camp continues to struggle to muster warm bodies for street demonstrations. Meanwhile, surveys confirm that most Filipinos favor her impeachment.

The Duterte forces, after all, hold a PhD in troll farming and disinformation. Just this January, a flood of fake social media accounts suddenly sprouted, spreading pro-Duterte propaganda, attacking critics, and drowning out authentic voices.

These fake accounts, incidentally, also post pro-China propaganda and anti-West Philippine Sea narratives. One wonders whether these Duterte operations are backed by the “50 Cent Army” or “Wumao,” named for allegedly being paid 0.5-yuan per post and known to operate domestically and internationally.

Adding to the circus, just a day ago, Sara Duterte’s and Pastor Quiboloy’s lawyer filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court to halt the impeachment process altogether. The petitions raised several issues but mainly rest on the one-year bar rule. As provided under Section 9, Article XI of the Constitution, “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.” The purpose of this rule is to shield impeachable officials from harassment through repeated impeachment attempts based on the same grounds.

We have read in the news that there were three impeachment complaints filed with the House in December last year. The media, for chronological purposes, indexed them as the first, second, and third complaints. Then they referred to the verified complaint filed by 215 congressmen with the Senate this February as the fourth complaint.

In fact, and in law, there was only one impeachment complaint initiated by the House and this was the verified complaint constituting the Articles of Impeachment that was sent to the Senate.

In Francisco vs. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the “initiation” of impeachment proceedings requires two distinct steps: (1) the filing of the impeachment complaint with the House, and (2) the referral of the complaint to the House Committee on Justice.

The three complaints in December remain pending and have not been acted upon by the House. The one-year bar takes effect once the impeachment process has been formally initiated through a referral to the Committee on Justice. The bar is triggered by initiation and not by mere filing.

The Francisco decision also affirmed that the House of Representatives has the sole discretion to determine whether an impeachment complaint merits referral to the Committee on Justice. Until the House acts on the complaints, they remain in the preliminary stage and do not constitute an initiation of impeachment proceedings.

In short, all these maneuverings by Sara Duterte and company point to only one thing — they are trying to delay and derail the impeachment process. Which is a clear indication that Sara has no intention of facing the charges against her. She is just a bully after all, masking her fear and insecurity through death threats.