Charity Unto Death

August 1, 2026 Memorial of Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church Readings for Today

Martyrdom of St John the Baptist, by Lawrence OP, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. Video Now Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, for John had said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” Although he wanted to kill him, he feared the people, for they regarded him as a prophet. Matthew 14:3–5 Saint John the Baptist was unwaveringly bold in his preaching, humble in his disposition toward God, and faithful to the truth he proclaimed. These holy virtues, however, did not spare him from the clutches of Herod—a man morally weak, politically fearful, and unrepentant. In the end, Herod not only imprisoned John but, through the manipulation of his unlawful wife and her daughter, had him killed. Who, then, was victorious? From a worldly perspective, it seemed Herod was. John was not only persecuted but martyred. Yet the true victory belonged to John. His triumph was not in escaping suffering but in remaining faithful—faithful to the truth, to charity toward Herod, and to the salvation of Herod’s soul. This sacrificial charity moved John to speak boldly, even at the cost of his life. At John’s death, Jesus grieved deeply. The loss was real and sorrowful, but not despairing. John’s followers also mourned out of love. He had changed many lives and prepared the way for Jesus’ ministry. Of him, Jesus said, “No one born of woman is greater than he” (Matthew 11:11). Today, separated by 2,000 years, it can be difficult to feel the sorrow of John’s loved ones. Yet the sting of that loss was profound because John loved profoundly. Those who are arrogant and self-centered often fade quickly from memory. But when a life radiates holiness, inspires through simplicity, and transforms hearts through truth, that loss is deeply and rightly mourned. The greatest human sorrow ever known was the mutual suffering of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, whose love was perfect. Their hearts were pierced not only by personal grief, but by the weight of humanity’s sin. John’s death was not tragic; it was meaningful. He died for the truth, for charity, for the Messiah. He died as a man deeply loved, whose life touched many. He died not in bitterness or confusion, but in courage, compassion, and purpose. His ministry was powerful, but the witness of his grace-filled martyrdom was even more so. Each of us is called to imitate Saint John the Baptist in our own way—with boldness, humility, and fidelity. We are called to love with a charity that becomes sacrificial, even costly. John’s life is a model of that sanctity. Can we see ourselves in him? When you examine your life, do you live boldly and confidently in the truth? Or do you give in to fear, which often leads to confusion and apathy? Is your charity strong enough to endure suffering, even unjust persecution, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls—including your own? Reflect today on the strength of your charity. We are all called to a love so deep that it requires supernatural courage and understanding. Consider your life through the powerful lens of Saint John the Baptist’s witness. Sacrifice is painful. It was for John, for his followers, and even for Jesus. Are you willing to endure such suffering in fidelity to God’s will? Seek the Baptist’s intercession today and follow his example, that your charity may touch many lives and leave a lasting impression. Most loving Lord Jesus, Your human heart grieved the suffering and death of John the Baptist, whose mission was to prepare the way for Your public ministry. Yet Your sorrow did not flow from despair, but from love and gratitude for John’s life and his selfless witness, born of true charity. Grant me, I pray, that same courage and love that flowed from John’s heart, so that my life, like his, may leave a lasting impression on others, give You glory, and sanctify my own soul. Jesus, I trust in You.

When senator-judges become defense counsels

By Antonio Contreras

On the Contrary

The Manila Times

August 1, 2026

IN my view, the prosecution and defense panels are doing their assigned jobs. The prosecution is presenting a case for conviction. The defense is challenging that case and protecting the respondent. We may criticize their strategies, but advocacy is their function. The deeper problem lies elsewhere: in a Senate impeachment court where some senator-judges behave not as neutral adjudicators but as additional counsel, usually for the defense.

A basic distinction should govern the proceedings. Counsel may examine and cross-examine witnesses, challenge credibility, develop a theory of the case and draw conclusions from the evidence. Senator-judges may ask genuine clarificatory questions and make proper procedural interjections.

Their task is to understand, regulate and decide. Once their questions become leading, argumentative or designed to rescue one side from damaging testimony, they cease clarifying and begin advocating.

Sen. Robinhood Padilla illustrated this confusion when he admonished the prosecution not to be “one-sided.” A prosecution panel is necessarily one-sided, just as the defense is. Each side presents its strongest lawful case, and truth is tested through the contest between them. The person who must not be one-sided is the senator-judge. Yet Padilla’s intervention effectively adopted a defense complaint and directed it at the very panel whose constitutional task is to prosecute.

Sen. Bong Go crossed a similar boundary when he appeared to explain or justify Vice President Sara Duterte’s assault on a sheriff. The prosecution offered the incident as evidence of an alleged pattern of violent conduct. Go was free eventually to reject that inference when judging the case. But supplying an exculpatory explanation while the evidence was being presented was the work of defense counsel. A judge evaluates an explanation after it is offered; a defense lawyer offers it.

.

Senators Alan Peter Cayetano and Pia Cayetano have repeatedly pursued lines of questioning that resemble cross-examination. Their interventions have tested witnesses, challenged the prosecution’s theory and supplied propositions favorable to the defense. The problem is not that senator-judges ask questions. It is that questions cease to be clarificatory when they are structured to impeach a witness, elicit concessions for one party or argue with an answer. Cross-examination belongs to counsel, not to judges wearing a second, invisible defense hat.

Sen. Raffy Tulfo provided another example in his questioning of a bank manager. Instead of clarifying banking procedures or the witness’ testimony, he passed judgment on the witness’ managerial competence. That was no longer a neutral effort to understand the evidence. It was an argumentative conclusion about the witness, delivered before the court had completed hearing the case. If parties are forbidden from making premature factual or legal conclusions, senator-judges should not be allowed to make them from the bench.

This exposes a glaring double standard. Party-list representative Leila de Lima was stopped while introducing the prosecution’s presentation because she was supposedly already making conclusions of law and fact. Senate presiding officer Francis Escudero enforced a narrow, legalistic limit on how the prosecution could frame its case. Yet the same court has tolerated senator-judges making conclusions, disputing witnesses and advancing defense-friendly interpretations during questioning. Rules cannot be strict restraints on the parties but elastic privileges for the judges.

Pia Cayetano presents an additional contradiction. She rose to remind everyone, including her colleagues, about proper conduct and decorum. But she later shared a spliced video that reinforced a narrative favorable to the defense. A senator-judge who publicly circulates selective material bearing on a pending case is not merely commenting on procedure. She is entering the adversarial contest. One cannot credibly police judicial restraint inside the chamber while practicing partisan advocacy outside it.

The conduct can be plainly enumerated: Padilla faulted the prosecution for performing its adversarial role; Go supplied a defense-oriented justification for contested conduct; Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano used questions resembling cross-examination; Tulfo pronounced judgment on a witness’ competence; Pia Cayetano amplified selectively edited material; and Escudero imposed legalistic restraints on the prosecution while permitting senator-judges wider latitude to argue and conclude. These are not isolated slips. Together, they reveal a failure of role discipline.

Impeachment is not an ordinary criminal trial. Its ultimate question is not simply whether criminal guilt has been proven under the standards of a trial court. It is whether a high official has committed an impeachable offense and remains fit to retain the public trust. Due process remains indispensable, but legal formalism must not be selectively used to weaken one side while senator-judges themselves engage in conduct that would be improper for neutral adjudicators.

This is why the overjudicialization of impeachment is dangerous. The Senate borrows courtroom rules, then applies them asymmetrically. It restrains advocates for being argumentative while allowing judges to argue. It warns parties against conclusions while permitting judges to announce their own. It insists on decorum while some senator-judges campaign for a preferred interpretation. Procedure becomes not a safeguard of fairness but a convenient instrument for controlling one side and assisting the other.

Neutrality does not require silence. Senator-judges may clarify ambiguities, resolve procedural questions and test whether they have correctly understood the record. But they must not rehabilitate witnesses, construct defenses, attack prosecution witnesses or publicly promote one party’s narrative. The relevant test is not whether a question ends with a question mark. It is whether its purpose is comprehension or advocacy.

The prosecution and defense should be allowed to do their jobs. The Senate impeachment court must do its own. Its members are not there to rescue either panel, much less to become an auxiliary defense team. They are there to hear the full case, maintain fair rules and judge without appearing to have chosen a side in advance.

When senator-judges become counsels, the principal casualty is the credibility of the court. Any verdict, whether conviction or acquittal, will command respect only if the process is evenhanded. The Constitution entrusted the Senate with the grave power to try impeachments. That trust requires more than legal knowledge. It requires restraint, consistency and the discipline to remain judges even when partisan instincts tempt them to become lawyers.

The author is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the Board of PTV Network Inc. (PTVNI).