Oops, too high

Love the energy of the House of Representatives right now. Very diligent. You look at them and, “Wow, we can really investigate when we want to.” Then you remember that sometimes we don’t want to.

Because once you see this much appetite for inquiry, you cannot unsee what happened to the impeachment complaint versus Bongbong.

Flood scandal. Biggest controversy. In years! Maybe ever. Hearings. Pressers. Site visits. Contractors, officials, Curlee, Sarah, Brice. Everybody’s getting dragged out to the plaza. Like “we will follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

The trail climbs beautifully. At home, you follow it step by step. Then, boom: Wall. A sign that says “Please don’t look up.”

Genius.

The impeachment complaint had a simple ground: Did the President benefit from flood control kickbacks?

Demand it be asked under oath, with records, subpoenas, suddenly the official phrase of the same House that pursued the trail with remarkable diligence is: “insufficient in substance.”

Everything was connected, until the connection mattered. They solved the mystery by stopping before the mystery. They treated it like a puzzle, then removed the final piece. 

Insufficient in substance? We just arrested people! We’re supposedly so far out after a fugitive ex-colleague running across borders with a golden passport.

Normal investigations expand when the stakes rise. Curiosity grows. Here, curiosity shrank at the exact point it should have grown. We’re not even debating the answer and disqualified the question. Since when is a question illegal?

People don’t expect instant guilt. One thing: we expect the highest office is not the one place we’re not allowed to look. 

The House says: OK, then, bring a strong case. But the strongest parts of a case: bank records, procurement trails are after subpoenas. The proof is behind the door, guarded by the people saying, “Bring proof.”

The President’s impeachment gets the “prove it before we start.” Sara gets the “let’s start so we can prove it.”

They’ll tell you nothing was proven. Of course, not: nothing was tested. Genius. You never start the investigation, you never find the problem.

Either the President knew of the kickback scheme or he did not. If he knew, that’s material. If he did not, that is also material in a government he heads. Both paths lead to inquiry. Neither justifies closing it.

They are not afraid of weak complaints. They are afraid of complaints that might become strong. Sara’s impeachment proves the House believes probable cause can be built through hearings.

That makes the Marcos line absurd. If probable cause can mature through inquiry for Sara, why must it be born fully adult for Bongbong?

By letting a “weak” complaint reach the floor, then killing it fast as “insufficient in substance,” the House vaccinated Bongbong. Very smart. Congressional Pfizer.

Now Zaldy Co could walk in Naia tomorrow, confessing inside the suitcases with AMLC in tow, and the House can say: “Sorry. One-year bar. See you in 2027.”

They didn’t dismiss it because it was weak. They dismissed it while it was weak so, if it becomes undeniable later, it’s illegal to discuss.