Impeachment and accountability

By Herman M. Lagon

Yesterday, the House of Representatives impeached Vice President Sara Duterte, sending the matter to the Senate for trial. Even before the vote, the country already feels tense. The conversations have spilled far beyond Congress. In jeepneys, faculty rooms, sari-sari stores, cafés, and Messenger group chats, people are arguing not only about Sara Duterte, but also about loyalty, power, fairness, and whether accountability still means anything in Philippine politics when the official involved belongs to one of the country’s most powerful political families. Some believe the impeachment is necessary and overdue.

Others see the impeachment push as politics wearing a legal costume. Given the country’s history, many Filipinos understand why people feel that way. Elections are always near, alliances are always fragile, and powerful names rarely fight quietly. But after all the speeches, interviews, and online arguments, the real issue remains painfully straightforward: when questions involving public money and public trust become serious enough, should the country avoid the process because it looks political, or should the evidence still be tested openly and fairly?

The issue also continues to linger because the allegations themselves are serious. They involve confidential funds amounting to hundreds of millions of pesos, questionable records, unexplained transactions, and statements critics viewed as threats against top government officials. Duterte’s camp says the accusations are part of a political effort to weaken her before 2028. Many understand why people think that way. Politics in this country has never been short on rivalries, shifting alliances, or power plays. Still, even if politics is involved, serious questions do not simply disappear. Sometimes political fights also bring real issues into the open.

What makes the issue heavier for many is that the accusations do not revolve around just one controversy. Beyond the confidential funds issue, there is a growing pattern of questionable disbursements, receipts, unexplained transactions, and financial irregularities, and even alleged billion-peso bank movements linked to the Duterte family that critics and lawmakers believe deserve closer scrutiny. There were also remarks interpreted by critics as threats against top government officials. For many ordinary citizens, those are not the kinds of accusations people simply dismiss as routine political drama. They involve public money, public trust, and one of the highest offices in the country. That naturally raises the stakes.

That is why the confidential funds issue feels heavy for many ordinary Filipinos. Teachers buy bond paper, markers, and electric fans using their own salaries. Nurses work in packed hospitals where supplies often run short. Parents quietly recalculate grocery budgets while hoping tuition payments can still be made on time. People know what lacking funds looks like because they live with it daily. Drivers and fisherfolk carefully monitor fuel prices because one increase already affects what reaches the dining table. That is why discussions involving PHP 612.5 million naturally trigger frustration. To struggling families, that amount is not just a number flashed on television. It represents classrooms, medicines, scholarships, and services that could have helped ordinary people.

At the same time, pretending Sara Duterte has no genuine support would also be dishonest. Many, despite everything, still sincerely admire her. Some appreciate her directness in a political culture full of polished but empty speeches. Others still associate the Duterte name with discipline and decisiveness. Mocking supporters as blind followers only deepens division. Many are simply tired of weak governance and leaders who disappear after elections. But admiration alone cannot exempt any official from scrutiny. Elections give leaders authority, not immunity. A popular mayor can still face an audit. A respected school head can still be investigated. The same standard should apply to a vice president.

Part of what makes this issue more confusing is how quickly fake or misleading information spreads online. Many people continue sharing claims that the Supreme Court already blocked the impeachment proceedings. Fact-checking organizations such as Rappler, however, already clarified that no restraining order stopped the renewed 2026 impeachment process. The earlier Supreme Court ruling only involved the constitutional one-year bar rule connected to the previous complaint. It was not a declaration of innocence. Unfortunately, nuance rarely survives social media. Many people now consume politics emotionally, like a teleserye where favorite characters matter more than verified facts.

Beyond the online noise, questions about transparency and accountability have also continued to grow. Another issue quietly bothering many observers is Duterte’s continued absence from several key hearings connected to the controversy. Legally, Duterte can choose her own defense strategy. But beyond legal rights, many also look at whether leaders are willing to personally answer serious questions. In the country, showing up during difficult moments still matters to many people. Her repeated absence from hearings has only deepened public doubt rather than reassurance.

That is exactly why the Senate trial matters if impeachment proceeds. Impeachment is not automatic guilt. The House only determines whether enough grounds exist to formally accuse a public official.

The Senate serves as the impeachment court precisely because impeachment is supposed to be fair, not rushed. The House only decides whether enough basis exists to move the case forward. The Senate is where evidence is reviewed carefully and where both sides get the chance to answer publicly. Many mistakenly treat impeachment as immediate guilt when it is really meant to be part of due process. If Duterte and her allies truly believe the accusations have no basis, then facing the trial directly may even strengthen her credibility.

By the time this article is published, the House may have already made its decision. Many political observers now quietly admit that the impeachment already appears largely “in the bag” and likely headed to the Senate. Because of that, the bigger question may no longer be whether the trial will happen, but what kind of trial the country will eventually witness. Filipinos have seen enough political spectacles over the years to recognize when hearings become more about performance than truth. Many are now simply hoping for a process grounded more in evidence, fairness, and accountability than in political grandstanding.

But everyone also knows the politics surrounding the issue are real. Some lawmakers fear losing allies or damaging future political plans if they vote for impeachment. The PDP itself warned representatives of possible consequences. That reality says a lot about how politics works in the country. Still, constitutional duty loses credibility when leaders respect it only when it benefits them. Institutions do not collapse only through dramatic scandals. Sometimes they weaken quietly whenever fear becomes stronger than responsibility.

Perhaps that is why this issue feels bigger than Sara Duterte herself. The country has long struggled with selective accountability. Ordinary employees can face sanctions for small paperwork errors, while controversies involving influential figures drag on for years. Teachers understand this frustration deeply. A missing signature can trigger memos immediately, yet billion-peso controversies often remain unresolved. Over time, people begin believing rules only apply to ordinary citizens while the powerful operate under different standards. That quiet loss of trust damages democracy more than politicians realize.

Perhaps that is why the issue continues to feel deeply personal to many Filipinos, even beyond politics itself. For many people, the debate is no longer just about one politician or one family, but about whether accountability still applies equally in the country.

Still, fairness must remain central. Duterte deserves due process. Evidence should be examined carefully, not emotionally. We should resist turning impeachment into entertainment or an online blood sport. One can support accountability without celebrating humiliation. One can criticize Duterte without demonizing every supporter she has. In the end, today’s House vote is not only about Sara Duterte or the collapse of the Marcos-Duterte “unholy” alliance. It is about whether we still believe no public office should become too powerful to answer difficult questions.

If allegations this serious are brushed aside because of political loyalty or dynastic power, then accountability in the country risks becoming selective theater instead of a democratic principle. Public trust is not inherited like a family name or political machinery. It has to be earned, defended, and explained repeatedly.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world that is grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views herewith do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions with which he is employed or connected.