With 6 February fast approaching, talk of a second impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte is once again creeping back into the national conversation. And not without reason. The issues that fueled last year’s impeachment attempt did not disappear just because the process was abruptly shut down. They remain unanswered, unresolved, and very much alive.

Start with the confidential funds. Hundreds of millions of pesos were granted to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education under her watch. Questions about how those funds were spent and why a portion allegedly ended up with recipients bearing names like “Mary Grace Piattos,” have never been properly addressed. 

Instead of clarity, the public got stonewalling and vague invocations of “national security.” Now those same transactions are the subject of a plunder complaint before the Ombudsman. That alone tells you the issue is far from settled.

This feels eerily similar to the flood control scandal. Names have been revealed. Testimony has been given. Documents have surfaced. Yet accountability remains elusive. 

Just as many of the alleged masterminds behind flood control kickbacks remain free, those responsible for funneling confidential funds to dubious recipients have likewise not been held to account. For a public already fed up with selective justice, this pattern is hard to ignore.

But it is not just old issues that are resurfacing. New allegations have emerged that could raise the stakes even higher. Enter Ramil Madriaga, who claims to have been the Vice President’s bagman. His allegations are explosive: billions of pesos supposedly sourced from POGOs and drug operations, allegedly delivered to the Vice President. 

Members of the House have been quick to say these claims must be carefully vetted before they can be included in any impeachment complaint. That is fair. Extraordinary allegations demand serious scrutiny. But they cannot simply be brushed aside either.

Then there is the procedural fog left behind by the Supreme Court’s decision on last year’s impeachment. The ruling imposed additional requirements on the House of Representatives and was declared immediately executory. At the same time, an extensively argued motion for reconsideration filed by the Solicitor General is still pending. 

Until the Court rules on that motion, there is lingering uncertainty about the exact process the House must follow. That confusion is real and it matters, because impeachment is a constitutional mechanism for accountability and the political stakes have never been higher.

Which brings us to Malacañang. Last year, despite his own son leading the signing of the impeachment complaint, President Bongbong Marcos largely kept his distance. He famously dismissed the issue as a “storm in a teacup,” signaling that he had no appetite for a confrontation with his Vice President. 

This time, the tone appears to have shifted, at least slightly. Presidential Spokesperson Claire Castro recently said that anyone accountable should be held accountable. It is a cautious statement, but it is not an outright dismissal and also harder to walk back. Whether that signals genuine openness to impeachment or just careful hedging remains to be seen.

What is clear is that 6 February is no longer some abstract date on the calendar. It is a looming deadline, and it has put everyone on edge. Lawmakers are weighing possible evidence. Lawyers are parsing procedures. Political camps are quietly preparing for another round of battle.

For the public, the sentiment is simpler. Questions were raised. Answers were never given. New allegations have piled on. And patience is wearing thin.

If there is to be a showdown, it will not come out of nowhere. It will come because too many issues were left hanging for far too long. And the people are demanding a resolution.