The impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte continue to command national attention. Watching them, I cannot help but wonder whether the country is witnessing a genuine search for accountability or another chapter in the endless contest for political power. That question, more than anything else, keeps echoing in my mind.
What troubles me most is not simply that an impeachment case exists. Public officials should answer for their actions whenever credible evidence warrants it. My concern begins when politics appears to drown out substance, when every hearing, every statement, and every headline is interpreted through the lens of who gains and who loses rather than what the evidence actually proves. Once that happens, citizens stop watching for justice and start watching for strategy. The courtroom begins to resemble a chessboard, where every move invites speculation about the next election instead of confidence in the rule of law.
From my own observation, the intensity of the political conflict surrounding Sara Duterte makes it difficult to ignore another possibility: that some of her fiercest political rivals may also have strong electoral interests at stake. I cannot claim to know anyone’s private motives, and those motives are impossible to prove by observation alone. Still, it is hard not to notice that many discussions quickly drift toward the 2028 presidential race. If the impeachment were to end in a conviction carrying disqualification from public office, it would inevitably reshape that election. Whether that possibility is merely incidental or part of someone’s political calculation is a question that deserves thoughtful public scrutiny rather than blind acceptance.
Some people immediately assume that anyone expressing concern about these proceedings must be a Duterte loyalist. That assumption simply does not fit my own experience. I did not vote for Rodrigo Duterte in 2016; I supported Miriam Defensor Santiago. My appreciation for Duterte’s presidency came later, after watching policies and decisions that, in my personal view, reflected decisive leadership in several areas. Others may disagree with that assessment, and they have every right to do so, but my opinion grew out of what I believed I saw during those years rather than from party loyalty.
Several actions during the Duterte administration influenced that change in perspective. His government pursued campaigns against illegal drugs and insurgency that supporters viewed as firm responses to longstanding problems, while critics raised serious concerns about human rights and due process. During his term, the remains of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. were interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani following a Supreme Court ruling permitting the burial. The administration also secured the return of the Balangiga Bells from the United States after years of diplomatic efforts, and rehabilitation work in Manila Bay became one of its highly publicized environmental projects. Whether one praises or criticizes those policies, they became defining parts of his presidency and helped explain why many Filipinos continued to support the Duterte family politically.
That explains why Sara Duterte remains a significant political figure despite the controversies surrounding her. Popularity is never permanent, but neither is it manufactured overnight. It is earned, challenged, weakened, or strengthened by events that the public witnesses over time. When a politician enjoys a substantial following, efforts to remove that person from future electoral competition will naturally invite public debate about motive. The burden, therefore, rests heavily on institutions to show, through credible evidence and fair procedures, that justice—not political convenience—guides every step.
The greatest casualty in all of this may be public confidence itself. Every impeachment, regardless of who sits in the respondent’s chair, leaves many Filipinos wondering whether institutions still belong equally to everyone or whether they increasingly serve whichever political camp holds the stronger hand. Democracies cannot survive on legal procedures alone; they also depend on public belief that those procedures are applied consistently. If citizens conclude that accountability is selective while allies are treated differently from rivals, skepticism becomes the country’s unofficial national anthem.
My position is simple. I want the impeachment proceedings to succeed only if the evidence genuinely justifies them, and to fail if it does not. Political dominance should never lord it over and become the measuring stick for impeachment. The Filipino people deserve a process that is transparent, impartial, and firmly anchored in facts, because only such a process can persuade both supporters and critics that the outcome belongs to justice rather than to whichever political faction happens to celebrate when the final vote is counted.
