The House of Representatives is once again staring at the possibility of impeaching Vice President Sara Duterte. The environment could not be more different from a year ago. There is a new Speaker. The administration looks far more embattled. Corruption scandals hang heavy over the political landscape. And the Vice President, despite it all, remains the frontrunner in early 2028 surveys.

And yet, for all that has changed, what confronts her today feels strikingly familiar.

Not because the charges are recycled. Not because the complainants lack imagination. But because the core issues raised in the earlier impeachment complaints were never really answered.

Last year, the Vice President declared that she was ready to face the charges. She projected confidence. She framed the impeachment as political noise. But when the moment came to actually present evidence and rebut the allegations before the Senate, the process was derailed through the unconscionable delaying tactics of the former Senate President (everyone still remembers “forthwith,” right?), followed by a Supreme Court ruling anchored largely on procedural technicalities — the definition of a “session day;” whether the House rules required a committee hearing for all modes of impeachment.

The Court itself was careful to say that its decision did not absolve her of any wrongdoing. It merely halted the process on what essentially amounted to technical grounds. That distinction matters.

If the Vice President had gone through the trial and cleared her name on the merits, we would not be here again. If she had answered, line by line, how hundreds of millions in confidential funds were spent, if she had squarely addressed the questionable procurements at the DepEd, if she had explained that bizarre late night statement about hiring an assassin to kill the President, we would have at least had closure.

Instead, what we got was silence, deflection and procedural escape. And so here we are again.

The confidential funds remain an open question. The alleged anomalies in DepEd procurement remain unresolved. The plunder complaint before the Ombudsman continues to move. And now, new allegations have entered the picture. The testimony of Ramil Madriaga, who claims to have been a close ally and bagman, alleges that over a billion pesos from drugs and POGO operations found its way to the Vice President.

Those are explosive claims that demand serious scrutiny. They also demand a serious response.

Which brings us to the principle that should govern this impeachment round: lay out the evidence. Let the Vice President respond. Let the truth come out in full view of the Filipino people.

That is not persecution. That is accountability. And hopefully, that will result in closure.

We already had one impeachment process cut short before the substance of the accusations could be tested. The Supreme Court made clear that its ruling was not a declaration of innocence. The merits of the serious charges against the VP remain untouched.

If she is innocent, a full airing of the evidence will vindicate her. If she is not, the country deserves to know.

At the end of the day, an impeachment is not supposed to be comfortable. It is not meant to be a polite exchange of talking points. It is a constitutional mechanism that asks whether a high official has committed crimes that merit their removal from office. It is long past due that this question is answered openly and publicly.

As the old line goes, one the VP’s own political camp often used, “Kung walang kasalanan, bakit kailangang matakot” (If you are innocent, why be afraid)?