Impeachment, in theory, is a constitutional mechanism designed by our constitutional forefathers to hold high-ranking officials accountable for graft and corruption, abuse of power, or betrayal of public trust. This process is enshrined both in the 1935 and in the 1987 Constitution, which delineates the grounds and procedures for removing the President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, and members of the Constitutional Commissions. At first glance, it appears to be a straightforward legal process—an essential check and balance within a democratic framework which seeks to extract public accountability. However, beneath this veneer lies a complex, often opaque political theater where the lines between legality and politics blur into a murky landscape driven more by political convenience, strategic interests, and personal survival than by justice or rule of law.
The Philippine impeachment process exhibits a duality that is both real and problematic. Legally, impeachment involves a formal inquiry by the House of Representatives which serves as a congressional prosecutor body, which can approve and transmit an impeachment case before the Philippine Senate. The Senate then acts as the impeachment court, holding a trial that requires a two-thirds majority for conviction. The process, on paper, is rooted in constitutional law and intended to be a safeguard against abuses of power. Yet, in practice, it is heavily influenced by political considerations. This duality is evident in how impeachments are often initiated, prosecuted, and ultimately decided—not purely on the basis of substantive evidence, but on whether the political climate favors or opposes such action.
Historically, the process has been weaponized to serve political agendas rather than to uphold genuine accountability. For example, impeachments have been used to oust presidents or officials who fall out of favor with dominant political factions, rather than those who have committed clear and grave misconduct. In the current context, the impeachment efforts against Vice President Sara Duterte exemplify this political dynamic. While the process ostensibly seeks truth and justice, it is increasingly viewed by Filipinos as a maneuver rooted in political survival and ambition rather than a genuine pursuit of accountability. The delay in Vice President Sara Duterte impeachment trial—whether intentional or procedural—has become a reflection of the complex interplay of interests within the Philippine Congress.
The political calculus behind the delay in the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte is not merely a matter of procedural backlog or technicalities. It is a calculated political decision made by members of both the members of the House of the Representatives and members of the Philippine Senate, whose personal ambitions and political survival are intertwined with the current landscape.
In our country, public polls often shape the political fortunes of leaders; popularity ratings influence decisions, especially as the 2028 presidential race looms. Senators, many of whom are vying for the presidency or other high offices, are acutely aware that their actions—or inactions—can influence their political future. A conviction or a quick dismissal of the impeachment process might jeopardize their chances of securing a national position, especially if their constituents or political allies oppose such moves. Conversely, delaying proceedings allows them to avoid making a definitive decision that could alienate certain voter blocs or political factions. This strategic delay can be viewed from two angles.
On the one hand, it provides temporary relief for VP Sara Duterte, preventing her from being distracted or weakened by ongoing impeachment proceedings. On the other hand, it introduces a dangerous uncertainty. The longer the process remains unresolved, the more vulnerable it becomes to political manipulation, technicalities, or even the possibility of re-filing charges designed to weaken her political standing before her 2028 bid.
The general public should understand that such delays are not necessarily signs of fairness or justice. They often serve as strategic pauses—an opportunity for political actors to regroup, assess their positions, or even attempt to reframe the narrative. For VP Sara Duterte, this delay might be a brief respite, but it also carries potential long-term risks. Political opponents may seek to refile cases, exploiting legal loopholes or procedural delays to keep her politically sidelined or distracted.
Moreover, the timing of these delays is crucial. If the impeachment process is ultimately dismissed on technicalities, it may set a precedent that emboldens future politically motivated cases. Conversely, if it proceeds and results in conviction, it could dramatically alter the political landscape—either elevating Duterte’s standing as a victim of political persecution or weakening her influence if the charges are proven unfounded.
Amid this political chess game, there exists a fundamental question: Should public accountability be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency? The Filipino public rightly demands transparency, justice, and accountability from their leaders. While the pursuit of justice against VP Sara Duterte is important, it should not blind the nation to the broader systemic issues that continue to plague the country—particularly corruption at all levels of government.
Corruption in the Philippines is not confined to high-profile officials alone. It is a pervasive issue that affects local government units, barangay officials, and even frontline agencies. Ordinary Filipinos bear the brunt of this corruption—be it through the loss of public funds, substandard public services, or the erosion of trust in government institutions. The fight against corruption must be comprehensive, encompassing not just high-profile impeachment cases but also robust mechanisms for preventing, detecting, and punishing misconduct at all levels. Selective justice—pursuing only certain officials while turning a blind eye to others—undermines the legitimacy of the entire system. It fosters cynicism among citizens who see justice as a tool wielded by political elites rather than a universal principle.
Looking back at past impeachment attempts, it becomes clear that the process is often more about political signaling than genuine public accountability. The impeachment of President Joseph Estrada in 2000, for example, was driven by a mixture of legal charges and political maneuvering. The same pattern persists in various administrations, revealing a systemic tendency to weaponize impeachment for political ends. For the Philippines to strengthen its democratic institutions, there needs to be a shift from viewing impeachment as a political weapon to recognizing it as a genuine constitutional safeguard. This requires reforming the process to insulate it from political interference, enhancing transparency, and ensuring that impeachable offenses are clearly defined and substantiated by credible evidence. The general public must remain vigilant. While delays and political machinations may temporarily shield certain officials, sustained civil society engagement, media scrutiny, and judicial oversight can help keep the process honest. Citizens should demand that impeachment, where justified, be pursued diligently and fairly—regardless of political affiliations or ambitions.
In sum, the Philippine impeachment process remains a complex, often compromised, political instrument. While it is constitutionally designed to serve as a check on abuse of power, in practice, it is frequently driven by political calculus, personal ambitions, and strategic delays. The current situation with VP Sara Duterte exemplifies this reality—a process that is as much about political survival as it is about justice. The public’s role is critical. We must look beyond headline-grabbing impeachment proceedings and advocate for a system that enforces accountability equitably across all levels of government. Justice should not be selective; it should be universal. Whether the trial proceeds or is delayed, Filipinos must remain vigilant against attempts to manipulate the process for political gain. In the end, true accountability will only be achieved when the rule of law supersedes political interests, and officials at all levels—local and national—are held responsible for their actions. Until then, the Philippine political landscape will continue to be a battleground of interests, where justice often takes a backseat, and the people’s trust remains at the mercy of political weather vanes.
