They think they’ve got Sara Duterte all figured out.

P6.7 billion. Big number. Scary. You say AMLC, you flash a few red flags, you line it up with the Trillanes papers. “Look, it matches.” And just like that, the public is convinced Sara Duterte is guilty. Incredible.

Probable cause is just the beginning of a case. But you listen to the House of Representatives and you hear a great damn hurry to be right.

The speeches arrive preened for awards. Cong. Jinky Luistro, right as the credit started rolling:

“Is Sara Duterte a public servant or a private billionaire?”

Jinky, are you asking Sara or you just want her to confirm it? When did doubt stop being part of the job?

Because this is supposed to be the House of Representatives stage. You find it. The Senate proves it.

AMLC didn’t say “illegal.” Didn’t say “stolen.” It didn’t say “public funds diverted.” AMLC merely flagged it as suspicious and raised an eyebrow.

The House wants you to take that eyebrow and call it a conviction.

“Every red flag needs an answer.” Sure. But in this system, answer or no answer, same result. Red flag wins every time.

P6.7 billion. Spread over nearly 20 years. It sounds enormous when you stack it like that. But P6.7 billion over two decades is not the same as P6.7 billion in office.

Impeachment lives in the present tense, a constitutional remedy for present wrongdoing in office and only applies to the impeachable year. It is never a tool to relitigate a lifetime. Start the clock in 2022 and show what crosses the line.

The Bangko Sentral is independent by law. Yet its leadership is appointed by the President. AMLC operates within that orbit.

The current chief was only recently appointed. That may be routine. But in a case this charged, the timing is hard to ignore, not as proof of anything but as a reason to be careful about what we make the public believe to be “settled.”

Mans Carpio goes to court. Cong. Perci Cendana: “Kapag [ang mga Duterte] nahuhuli, nabubuko, nasusukol, tatakbo sa korte” (When the Dutertes get caught, found out, cornered, they run to the courts).

Of course, they go to court. That’s where accusations get checked. They even won there before. So what’s the complaint? Going to the one place where you might lose?

The impeachment complaint against the President was dismissed quickly by the House. “Too speculative.” “Not enough there.”

The complaint against Sara is moving just as fast, this time on flags, suspicion, on “it looks like.”

When the pace is identical but the standard is not, where does it stop looking like judgment and starts looking like preference?

An impeachment is a constitutional tool, not a shortcut to remove rivals. And they ask why Sara does not come?

Because the burden is not hers. The members of this body have already spoken out publicly against her. How can they now pretend neutrality?

Participation in a process one believes is prejudiced is not an admission of guilt but a challenge to the legitimacy of that process.

But because we are told that because something is unexplained, it must be illegal. That is not law. That is assumption. And assumption is the enemy of justice.