Critical fitness test for sara

Critical fitness test for sara | Daily Tribune

The gravity of the allegations, the stir created by the proceedings and the VP’s conduct throughout this episode raise a critical question: what would a Duterte presidency mean for the Philippines, particularly at a time the country is facing extraordinary geopolitical and economic pressures?

The charges against the Vice President are not minor. The impeachment complaints include betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, bribery and other high crimes.

Central to the accusations are the misuse of confidential funds, particularly the P125 million (P73 million of which was disallowed by the Commission on Audit) spent by the Office of the Vice President in just 11 days in December 2022; the fabrication of liquidation documents, bribery and corruption in the Department of Education which she once headed; making assassination threats; unexplained wealth; and her refusal to recognize congressional authority, that is, her defiance of congressional oversight, refusing to participate in the House investigation and her non-attendance at budget hearings.

These are not technicalities. These beg the question of whether Duterte possesses the institutional discipline, ethical grounding, and respect for democratic norms that the nation’s highest office demands.

Equally alarming is the conduct Duterte has exhibited outside formal proceedings. Her publicly recorded threat to have President Marcos, the First Lady, and former House Speaker Romualdez assassinated — even claiming that she had contracted a killer — have been cited in the impeachment complaints.

For a public official who aspires to the presidency, this behavior should give every Filipino pause.

An official who resorts to making violent threats when asked to explain something the public has a right to know is a liability, not a leader. Diplomacy, alliance management and crisis negotiation require a temperament she has failed to demonstrate.

The geopolitical context makes this more, not less, urgent.

The Philippines sits at the crossroads of one of the world’s most contested maritime zones — the South China Sea — while navigating its relationship with both Washington and Beijing.

Global shocks — from the Middle East conflict affecting the oil supply to the shifting American trade policy — demand a president capable of steady, credible statecraft.

A leader whose public record includes making unhinged threats and alleged corruption is not equipped to represent the Philippines in high-stakes negotiations, attract serious foreign investment, or command the trust of regional allies.

Even if the Vice President survives the current impeachment round, the political and institutional damage is significant. Legal experts and civil society leaders warn the legislature and judiciary have weakened political accountability by sidelining clear constitutional processes, setting dangerous precedents that future officials could exploit.

In this environment, a Duterte presidency riding the momentum of an unresolved impeachment would send a chilling signal: that power, populism, and political maneuvering can successfully insulate a public official from accountability, no matter the gravity of the charges.

The implications for governance would be severe. A president under the shadow of unresolved corruption allegations would struggle to credibly lead anti-corruption reforms, discipline her Cabinet, or inspire public confidence in government institutions.

The Armed Forces and the Philippine National Police — the two most powerful instruments of the state — would fall under the command of someone who once publicly said she had hired a contract killer. The risks to our civil liberties, press freedom, and the rule of law would be substantial.

Duterte formally announced her intention to run for president in 2028 on 18 February 2026 even as the impeachment proceedings against her continued.

Her brazenness is something else. The impeachment process is never only about removing an official. It is, as the Blue Ribbon Committee leadership rightly frames it, a test of fitness — a constitutional mechanism by which the nation measures whether a leader’s character, competence, and conduct are commensurate and worthy of the public’s trust.

On all three counts, the evidence so far compels serious concern. The Philippines deserves better than to enter 2028 facing a presidential choice shadowed by unanswered questions about threats, corruption, and contempt for the rule of law.