Running to stand still
Sara Duterte herself has yet to squarely explain what really happened, how it happened, and why the public should still trust her.
Text size
Sara Duterte herself has yet to squarely explain what really happened, how it happened, and why the public should still trust her.
The Lenten break has a way of slowing everything down just enough for people to step back, take a breath, and reflect. And maybe that is precisely why, now that the pause is over, some issues come back into focus with even greater clarity. You return to them less distracted, less exhausted and perhaps less willing to tolerate the usual noise. And one of these issues is the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Her allies keep insisting that we should all move on. They say there are “more important” concerns. They frame the impeachment as a distraction, an inconvenience, an obstacle to governance. But that argument collapses the moment you look at the basic reality in front of us.
This is not just some petty political quarrel as they would have us believe. This is a serious question of fitness, integrity, and accountability hanging over the head of a sitting Vice President who has openly declared her ambition to become president.
What makes this all the more striking is the gap between rhetoric and conduct. Last year, the Vice President confidently declared that she was ready to face the accusations against her head on. There will be a “bloodbath,” as she put it in her usual style.
She said she would answer the charges in the proper venue, which any reasonable person would take to mean a Senate impeachment trial. But when that strong possibility finally loomed, her lawyers ran to the Supreme Court, argued technicalities, and secured a highly controversial ruling that stopped the process before she ever had to give a clear, direct answer. So much for “head on.”
Now the complaints have been refiled, and this time there is an additional stage in the House of Representatives before the matter can even reach the Senate. The House Justice Committee is conducting proceedings to determine whether the impeachment should move forward. And once again, instead of meeting the substance of the accusations, the Vice President’s response has been to challenge the process itself.
She questions the authority of the House. She claims the proceedings amount to a trial. She attacks jurisdiction. She refuses to appear. And, after all this time, there is still no straightforward point-by-point response to the serious allegations against her.
Last year, she insisted on an opportunity to confront the charges BEFORE going to trial in the Senate. Now that she has been given precisely that opportunity, she is hemming and hawing and attempting to dodge the entire process yet again. Is this really what confronting the charges looks like? Because from where many Filipinos sit, it looks more like a desperate attempt at evasion.
It has been more than a year since questions were first seriously raised about the alleged misuse of confidential funds, the anomalies in the Office of the Vice President, and the procurement issues during her stint at DepEd. Her lawyers have been busy. Her allies have been tireless on television and social media. The spinning has never stopped. But Sara Duterte herself has yet to squarely explain what really happened, how it happened, and why the public should still trust her.
Three decades after the Marcopper mining disaster devastated Marinduque’s waterways, the province is again pressing the…
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
And judging by the way this is unfolding, we can probably expect the same script over again. Another legal challenge has been brought before the Supreme Court. Another argument about procedure. Another delay. “Kaso na naman, wala pa ring sagot” (Another case, without an answer).
That may be clever lawyering. It may even be effective politics in the short term. But it is definitely not courage. It is certainly not transparency. And it is most surely not the kind of conduct that inspires confidence in someone who wants to lead the entire country.
