Impeachment, political warfare

The Constitution limits who may be impeached to a narrow circle. These are the President, the Vice President, justices of the Supreme Court, members of the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit, and the Civil Service Commission, and the Ombudsman. They may be removed only for culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

This careful design underscores how solemn and exceptional an impeachment is supposed to be.

Yet today, the Philippines is witnessing the unprecedented. There are concurrent impeachment complaints against both the President and Vice President. What was intended as a sacred constitutional safeguard now risks appearing to be a routine tool of political attrition.

One cannot help but think of the framers of the Constitution, who in 1986 labored to produce a Charter intended to prevent the return of abuse and excess in government. Many of them are no longer with us. They envisioned impeachment as a shield for the Republic and not a sword for political gladiators.

I do not claim to have personal knowledge of the evidence in the complaints, nor to have the legal expertise to judge their merits. Still, even ordinary observers can sense how the simultaneity of these actions feeds the perception that this is not solely about accountability but also about power. It appears to wound rivals, realign alliances, and display factional strength.

To call this merely unsettling is an understatement. It is destabilizing. When a solemn constitutional process is repeatedly invoked in a clustered fashion, public confidence weakens. The suspicion grows that impeachment is being used as a strategy rather than a safeguard.

At a time when the nation is grappling with serious governance issues and unresolved allegations of corruption, this twin spectacle distracts, polarizes, and exhausts the public. The apparent objective seems less about conviction and more about the political weakening of perceived adversaries. In the process, trust in institutions erodes, and the seeds of endless vendettas are planted.

Meanwhile, the country waits for economic recovery, investment generation, infrastructure completion, disaster preparedness, and institutional reform that require steady leadership. Every hour spent on impeachment is an hour lost for governance. The cost is high in delayed decisions, stalled reforms, and deepening cynicism among citizens who wonder if the government still works for them.

When impeachment appears to be a political game rather than a principled search for justice, institutions and the whole country suffer. Congress, the courts, and constitutional processes risk being seen not as guardians of the rule of law but as arenas for factional combat.

Our democracy, even after the triumph of People Power in 1986, remains fragile. If impeachment becomes cyclical as a standard response to political conflict, it invites governance paralysis, institutional disrepute, and civic disengagement. Citizens grow weary and apathetic, seeing impeachment as a struggle for personal victory rather than public accountability.

This is a moment for reflection. The Constitution intended impeachment to be rare, evidence-driven, and guided by sober national interest. It was never meant to be a reflexive political tactic.

The Philippines deserves accountability. It also deserves stability and governance focused on the common good. If this moment does not lead to a more disciplined and principled use of constitutional remedies, the lasting damage will not be to individual careers but to democratic practice itself.

As this column is being written on the evening of Wednesday, 4 February, the Justice Committee of Congress has declared the impeachment complaints against the President insufficient in form and substance, effectively signaling to the plenary that the effort is dead in the water.

That ruling offers only limited comfort. The larger issue remains. As long as impeachment is treated as a ready political weapon, any President remains vulnerable to repeated attempts during the remainder of a term, and the nation stays caught in a cycle of uncertainty that weakens both governance and public trust.