In the US, an INTELLIGENT debate rages over whether an "impeachable officer" can be ousted through means other than impeachment

Didn’t want to point this out because it might make certain people hysterical but the oversimplification or illogic being spouted against the Supreme Court’s quo warranto ruling is really annoying.

Noting the similarity and lineage between the US and Philippine constitutions, did nobody else connect the ongoing Mueller investigation against Trump to the quo warranto question here?

Did anyone get the obvious hint shown in every cable news channel that there is the possibility that, even in the US, even though the US Constitution uses the more direct “shall” rather than “may”, an “impeachable officer” can be removed from office other than by impeachment (in this case, by criminal indictment)?

Yes, there is no fixed answer yet precisely because these are untested legal issues. But the point is that the debate in the US exists and goes on, albeit considerably civilly and intellectually. Far more intellectual than merely saying “because Fr. Bernas said so”.

Oh, as for US judges (including justices): “Judges, too, can be impeached — even from positions of lifetime tenure — but nobody holds that they cannot also be charged and convicted while still on the bench”.

I’ll throw another thing here: read carefully Articles VII and VIII of our Constitution: no immunity from criminal prosecution is mentioned for our president and the justices, nothing similar to the carefully worded immunity stated in Article VI for Congress.

However, I post this trusting implicitly that our institutions are strong enough to withstand yellow insanity.

------------------------
Jemy Gatdula as posted on Facebook.