Myth of the impeachment narrative

Myth of the impeachment narrative | Daily Tribune

In the aftermath of the recent elections, some have been quick to attribute the Alyansa’s underwhelming performance to its support for Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment. This explanation, however, is more of perception than reality and is not supported by the numbers. The data from the 2025 elections tells a more nuanced story.

A closer look at the numbers reveals that support for the impeachment did not doom candidates at the polls. In fact, the majority of those who endorsed the impeachment complaints against Duterte were reelected.

Out of 115 reelectionist congressmen who signed the fourth impeachment complaint, 87 percent (100 legislators) retained their seats. This included high-profile figures like Manila Representatives Joel Chua and Rolando Valeriano, both of whom faced direct opposition from Duterte herself during the campaign.

The trend held even in Mindanao, a region considered a Duterte stronghold. There, 36 out of 44 pro-impeachment congressmen secured reelection, including Davao del Sur’s John Tracy Cagas, the only district representative from the Davao Region to support the impeachment.

Partylist organizations that backed the impeachment also performed strongly. Akbayan, for instance, emerged as the leading partylist with over 2.7 million votes. Leila de Lima, spokesperson for the impeachment complainants, won a seat, while progressive groups like Kabataan and ACT-Teachers also clinched congressional seats.

Local results further challenge the impeachment narrative. In Naga City, Camarines Sur Representative Gabriel Bordado Jr., an endorser of the third impeachment complaint, was elected vice mayor, and five liberal or progressive senators made it to the Magic 12 in the city.

Meanwhile, in Marinduque, the Velascos — staunch Duterte allies and impeachment opponents — lost both the gubernatorial and House races.

If the impeachment issue was not the main culprit, what then explains the Alyansa’s poor showing? The evidence points towards missed opportunities in voter engagement and organizational shortcomings rather than any single political stance.

One significant factor was the campaign’s limited outreach to key demographics, particularly young voters and overseas Filipino workers (OFWs). Alyansa’s campaign totally neglected them. Surveys from late March 2025 indicated that an overwhelming 84.8 percent of students supported Duterte’s removal, yet Alyansa’s campaign did not effectively engage this empowered bloc.

Curiously, even Comelec Chairman George Garcia hailed the youth for driving the historic midterm turnout, but it was the progressive candidates who — like Aquino and Pangilinan — reaped the rewards by actively courting them.

On the part of the migrant workers, the only major campaign event targeting overseas absentee voters was a single press statement in April, which failed to generate momentum or enthusiasm among this important group.

Additionally, the campaign struggled with internal unity and discipline. Two high-profile candidates — Imee Marcos and Camille Villar — openly undermined the coalition.

Both Marcos and Villar ran ads flaunting Sara Duterte’s personal support. This totally distorted Alyansa’s identity. Villar skipped sorties for weeks and Imee Marcos boycotted events after PRRD’s arrest.

Reports of disorganized events, such as the poorly managed press conference at Bulacan State University, highlighted weaknesses in campaign coordination and messaging. These organizational lapses likely contributed to the lack of voter enthusiasm and the inability to convert support into votes.

Alyansa also had no ground game. Events were scheduled around President Marcos’s availability. This was a fatal error since midterm elections are heavily influenced by local alliances. Part of the machinery is utilizing local government networks.

The 2025 elections demonstrated that the voters were not uniformly opposed to the impeachment of Sara Duterte. On the contrary, many reformist candidates who supported the impeachment not only survived but thrived at the polls.

Alyansa’s disappointing performance appears to have stemmed from a combination of strategic missteps, insufficient voter engagement, and internal challenges, rather than from its stance on the impeachment issue.