by – Glen Palaca Hubahib, Esq.
Three consequential elections are coming up in a few days. Brazil’s national elections on October 4, 2026, Israel’s Parliamentary elections on October 27, 2026, and the United States midterm elections on November 3, 2026.
Source: RCP
Latin and South America are beginning to simmer into an economic battlefront of the United States and China. Brazil as a rising economic power is closely allied with the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India & China) and the global south. The current President Lula da Silva is being strongly challenged by Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Flávio and President Javier Milei (Argentina) share a close political alliance and significant ideological overlap and widely believed to tilt towards the West. It is worthy to note that the United States is shoring up control in the Western hemisphere e.g. taking control of the Panama Canal, Venezuela and Greenland.
For the Israelis, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the longest serving Prime Minister and is hounded by corruption charges and intelligence failure of the October 7 attack. Gadi Eisenkot, the former IDF Chief of Staff, is closing in their head-to-head metrics as preferred prime minister. The campaign core issues are the accountability for the October 7 attacks, mandatory military service exemptions for Haredi Jews. The latter believe that the continuous study of the Torah and prayer act as a vital spiritual defense for the Jewish people, and the U.S. and Israel versus Iran war.
In the United States, Erin Covey of The Cook Political Report is predicting that the Republican Party is on track to lose the House Majority as 15 race ratings shift towards the Democratic Party. While the Senate races appear to be close and neck to neck. The economic headwind and the Iran War stalemate is battering the Republican Party as the kitchen table economics e.g. food, fuel prices and inflation have affected all Americans. Historically, the party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections. Since World War II, the president’s party has lost an average of 26 seats in the House, and an average of four seats in the Senate. If this happens, then the last two years of President Trump will become chaotic as endless investigations and cases will be heard against the administration.
Threshold:
There has been an endless debate regarding the Impeachment Court threshold votes to convict the respondent Vice President Sara Duterte. The plain language (verba legis) of the Constitution is two-thirds of ALL the members, which is 16. Currently there are 24 members, and no one is dead, resigned and expelled from the Chamber to reduce the membership.
Amici Curiae Justices Puno, Davide and Panganiban believed that the threshold moves like a speed dial especially when a Senator-Judge is absent, in hiding, and in prison. However, in the interpretation of the Constitution and the Laws (statutory construction) we have the Latin maxim: “expressio unios est exclusio alterius”. Meaning you cannot add a word or meaning that was not in the plain language of the Constitution, ergo absence, hiding, and imprisonment do not reduce the membership of the impeachment court.
Only Amicus Curiae Justice Azcuna explained the intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution, he, being the one who drafted the provision on impeachment. He posits that the two-thirds supermajority votes is a protection from partisan control, provide stability, and require broad consensus when convicting the respondent, and only when there is extreme wrongdoing.
Source: Library of Congress
Alexander Hamilton writing as Plubius in 1787 on impeachment in “The Federalist #65” states: “The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or the other; and in such cases there will be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than by the real demonstration of innocence or guilt.”
[Note: Glen Palaca Hubahib is admitted to practice law in California and the Philippines. He also holds an Electrical Engineering and MBA degrees. He writes on the intersection of law, history and political philosophy. He is a regular resource person of the top rated “Open Forum” program of Ardy Araneta-Batoy & Gloria Leodivica Araneta at station DYTR. The article reflects the author’s opinion and is not a legal advice. Send your comments to the author at hubahibg@gmail.com.]