Why 4 impeachment complaints?

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

The Supreme Court and the Senate received quite a lashing last week. Though it seems civil society is ready to move on, for its attention is being drawn to a dire concern, i.e. the national budget for 2026. Still, politicians and activists alike got their own 15-minutes at the Senate zarzuela to fuel their social media fans for the next couple of weeks. And now that this matter is on our rearview mirror, we can ponder why there were actually four impeachment complaints filed against the Vice President? What if it had been just one?

The first impeachment complaint was filed on December 2, 2024, by civil society activists and endorsed by Rep. Percival Cendaña. This complaint, by all indications, was sufficient in both form and substance. It could have stood on its own. Instead, what followed was a cascade of two additional complaints. All three were referred to the Office of the Speaker and were put on the Order of Business of the House of Representatives (HOR). But they were never deliberated in the plenary nor referred to the Committee on Justice as required by the constitution and the HOR impeachment rules.

The three complaints were deemed “archived.” Then the fourth complaint emerged several weeks later on February 5, 2025. Curiously, this impeachment complaint bore the signatures of over 200 members of the HOR—an unexpected twist, given its general reputation for executive subservience and political caution. This was then transmitted to the Senate and was received accordingly. From there began the months-long impeachment drama which ended last week at the halls of the Senate. No, may be not the final end, for it was only “archived.”

Admittedly, it might be impossible to determine why there were four impeachment complaints. But in retrospect, had the civil society groups and allied legislators consolidated around a single complaint—armed with the right legal arguments, clear evidence, and a broad-based, vocal public constituency—they might have mounted a more formidable impeachment initiative. Obviously, diverse groups with sometimes conflicting agendas will find it challenging to coalesce. But was there even an attempt to do this given that there was already a common interest to impeach the Vice President?

A single, well-supported complaint, with sustained public mobilization and media scrutiny, could have increased pressure on the Speaker of the HOR to comply with constitutional obligations and House rules. It would have made political evasion harder to justify. It could have compelled the Committee on Justice to seriously consider the merits and move the process forward toward the Senate. One complaint with an unequivocally strong and solid constituency behind it would have made it very difficult for the powers-that-be in the HOR to manipulate the impeachment process.

Even the question of whether the Senate must act “forthwith” on an impeachment case could have been politically untenable to ignore. No Senate President in his right mind will ever cross a strong, united, vocal, and non-partisan coalition. The impeachment trial would have commenced as mandated by the constitution and the Senate impeachment rules. The unified and unyielding constituency demanding trial for the impeached Vice President would have compelled senators to fulfil their constitutional duty instead of running away from it.

Still, this regrettable episode in our politics is not without value. It has exposed the fragility of the impeachment process and the ease with which it can be neutralized by procedural delays and political self-preservation. More importantly, it offers a strategic lesson to those seeking to hold high public officials accountable: build a broad, non-partisan base first. Mobilize public opinion deliberately and strategically, not impulsively. And ensure that political initiatives are grounded in legal tactics, not just moral outrage.