Remember that impeachment is just political theater

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is must-see political theatre. Curtains opened a few days ago with prosectors from the House of Representatives hearing mass and petitioning God for a conviction verdict. This effectively sets up the Senate to be branded as a den of demons when they acquit Vice President Duterte. Conviction is an answered prayer. Acquittal is the work of Satan.

It is interesting, though understandable, that the prosecutors would use the church to buttress their cause. But when the political spectacle is stripped away, a straightforward question remains: after an impeachment trial concludes, is the country actually better equipped to prevent corruption? Are political dynasties weakened? Have the incentives that sustain patronage and plunder been altered? Experience suggests the answer is no.

What impeachment does accomplish with certainty is the intensification of political conflict. The theatrics is entertaining, but it comes with a dear cost. This resulting dysfunction is partly a consequence of the political system itself. Presidential elections are winner-take-all contests. Without a runoff system or meaningful incentives for coalition-building, politics revolves around identifying the likely victor as early as possible.

Dynastic politicians migrate toward whoever appears strongest, not necessarily because they share principles or policy goals, but because political survival depends on proximity to power. Ideological commitment gives way to political expediency.

Such an environment inevitably encourages tribal politics, now firmly entrenched thanks to survey firms. Elections become existential struggles in which victory promises access to state resources while defeat risks political marginalization. It is therefore unsurprising that administrations often govern with predatorial intent.

Political families and their allies accumulate influence, consolidate patronage networks, and protect their positions against future challengers. Corruption, in this context, is not simply the product of immoral individuals; it is reinforced by institutional incentives that reward the accumulation and preservation of power.

Impeachment does little to change those incentives.

Keep in mind that its constitutional consequence is limited to removal from office and disqualification from holding future public office. Those are important sanctions, but they do not include imprisonment, restitution, or the recovery of stolen public funds. Criminal accountability must still be pursued through separate proceedings.

The danger is that impeachment creates an impression that justice has already been served when, in reality, only a small part of accountability has been addressed. Meanwhile, the systemic conditions that enabled corruption remain intact.

If lawmakers are genuinely committed to reducing corruption, legislative reform deserves greater priority than political spectacle. Congress possesses powers that no other institution can exercise. It can enact structural reforms that make corruption more difficult, more detectable, and more costly.

Measures already identified as legislative priorities by the Marcos administration, together with reforms to public financial management, budgeting, procurement, and auditing, deserve a higher level of urgency because they address the institutional architecture through which corruption operates.

These are not glamorous initiatives. They require a lot of effort to understand. And they rarely dominate headlines. Yet they are precisely the kinds of reforms capable of producing durable improvements in governance.

Ultimately, impeachment may satisfy a reasonable public clamour to see powerful officials held accountable. But political lynching alone is not institutional reform. It does not alter the incentives that sustain corruption. It does not weaken entrenched political dynasties. Nor does it prevent future administrations from exploiting the same structural weaknesses.

The more consequential struggle against corruption unfolds away from the television cameras. It takes place through legislation, budget reforms, procurement rules, criminal investigations, judicial proceedings, and asset recovery.

Those processes lack the drama of impeachment, but they possess something far more valuable: the capacity to produce lasting institutional change. Until national attention shifts from political spectacle to structural reform, Filipinos will just continue to mistake the theatrical performances of our lawmakers for actual public service.