Even lynchings need the proper paperwork. In essence, that’s what the Supreme Court reminded us this week in a 13-0-2 ruling that declared the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.

As per the gods of Padre Faura, the impeachment complaint of the House of Representatives against the feisty Duterte — her tough-talking father’s daughter — may not be infirm in essence or undeserving of scrutiny.

But watching Speaker Martin Romualdez’s minions fumble their bid to scratch Duterte from the 2028 presidential race is a comedy. Four complaints were hurled within a year; three quietly euthanized in committee silence.

The fourth, they swore, was “the one.” Betrayal of public trust, corruption, high crimes — the usual hits plus a “kill, kill, kill” remix from Sara against the President, the First Lady, and the Speaker for dramatic flair.

They even had the votes — 215 warm bodies, many of whom might not recognize an “impeachable offense” if it slapped them. Or, judging by their haste to sign, perhaps didn’t even read it. But like the ghost of Davao’s past, the Constitution loomed.

Article XI, Section 3(5): No impeachment twice in a year. A clause not often remembered, even less obeyed, but there it was — etched in the founding parchment like a yellowing post-it from an exasperated father: “Stop trying to burn the house down more than once per fiscal year.”

Since the first complaint was resolved only on 6 February 2025, the High Court said the latest one came one day too early — stillborn by calendar error. Like a revolution foiled by DST or daylight saving time.

And so the Court said no. Not now. Maybe next February: bring snacks, send in the clowns again, toss in firebreathers and elephants for the traveling circus.

Even as the ruling landed, so did the irony. Duterte was not cleared of the charges; it was all about form and due process — that creaky, mothballed doctrine.

SC Spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting — whose name evokes either a K-drama star or a jasmine tea brand — stood before the press and delivered the moral. “The end does not justify the means,” she intoned.

Meanwhile, the Senate danced its strange “paso doble.” Some vowed to respect the ruling. Others, Bam Aquino included, said the process had begun and should barrel on. Sui generis, they insisted — Latin for “of its kind.”

In Philippine politics, when they say sui generis, they usually mean they’re winging it, or bending the rules with flair. It’s just a fancy way of saying: “This is a special case because we say so.”

Now comes the melo-drama king, Senator Bato dela Rosa, claiming that heavenly whispers guided the SC justices’ unanimous vote in Duterte’s favor. Divine jurisprudence? We await Vatican confirmation; not taking Bato’s word for it.

As could be expected, Duterte’s camp called it a victory for the rule of law; her critics, clutching legal briefs like protest banners, called it a delay of the inevitable.

As even the Duterte zealots would have to admit, the charges linger —Davao’s ghosts, the strongman nostalgia, now polished with lipstick and pearls. The Supreme Court spoke only of timing. “Not now” is not “never.”

And so we wait for 6 February 2026. The lesson for the eager beavers in the House? Do the paperwork — or have it reduced again to paper good only for wiping their backsides with.