A conviction could remove Sara Duterte from office and dramatically reshape the political landscape, but it could also deepen the polarization.
MEMBERS of House Prosecution Panel during the 21st day of the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte at the Senate.
PHOTO courtesy of Aram Lascano for DAILY TRIBUNE
Eight weeks into the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the country is beginning to suffer from hearing fatigue. As of 1 September, it will have been eight weeks and one day since the trial began on 6 July, yet judgment day may still be weeks away, perhaps until October. The only saving grace has been the brilliance of the distinguished lawyers and senators, whose legal expertise and incisive questioning have brought clarity, rigor, and substance to proceedings that have been lengthy and tedious.
However, for the 113 million Filipinos, or 99 percent of the population outside the legal profession (as of 2024 according to the SC and PSA), the trial is becoming an exercise in endurance. Beneath the fatigue is a deeper concern that the impeachment process is drifting from a constitutional proceeding into a political contest.
That distinction matters. Impeachment is meant to determine whether a public official committed impeachable acts that warrant removal from office and disqualification from further holding office.
Allegations involving confidential funds, unexplained wealth, abuse of authority, and threats against public officials cannot simply be dismissed. They deserve serious, impartial, and careful scrutiny.
But an impeachment trial should not become an endless political battle. Evidence should matter more than theatrics, while facts and the Constitution should matter more than personalities and political alliances.
Unfortunately, the proceedings have been weighed down by procedural disputes, lengthy lectures, public bickering, and arguments that seem far removed from the central question.
The danger is the public may eventually stop watching to understand the evidence but watch simply to see which political camp wins. That would undermine the very purpose of the process.
More troubling is what the country loses while the political battle drags on.
The Philippines faces urgent problems on the cost of living, jobs, education, poverty, infrastructure, the public debt, energy security, and the increasingly difficult situation in the West Philippine Sea. These problems do not disappear because the Senate is occupied with an impeachment.
The cost may not appear as a line item in the national budget, but the country pays through lost time and attention, diverted political energy, deeper polarization and probable declining public trust.
When citizens see name-calling, personal attacks, and endless procedural battles, they may conclude that the process is no longer about establishing the truth but about who can overpower the facts, control the narrative, and emerge politically stronger. When faith in institutions weakens, personalities and political loyalties become more powerful. That is how institutions lose ground while political figures gain it.
The country’s standing abroad may also suffer when a constitutional process is consumed by political confrontation. A prolonged battle involving the President’s former ally and a strong contender for 2028 reinforces the perception of a political system driven too heavily by personalities and partisan conflict.
A conviction could remove Sara Duterte from office and dramatically reshape the political landscape, but it could also deepen the polarization. Her supporters might view the verdict not as an impartial application of the Constitution but as an effort by political opponents to prevent a Duterte comeback.
An acquittal could leave her politically bruised, but it could strengthen her. She could portray herself as the target of those in power who survived the challenge.
In that case, the impeachment could be the foundation for her 2028 campaign rather than be the end of the controversy.
The verdict matters. But what matters even more is what the country becomes after it.
The trial should not be an early referendum on the 2028 election. It is a constitutional process intended to establish facts, apply the law, and reach a judgment based on evidence rather than popularity, political pressure, or partisan loyalty.
If Sara Duterte is acquitted, that does not mean everything she did was proper. If she is convicted, it does not mean the Duterte political movement has disappeared.
An impeachment is a constitutional remedy, not a substitute for elections.
Ultimately, the verdict will settle the political fate of the Vice President, but it will not heal the divisions that brought the country here. Nor will it solve the problems waiting beyond the Senate chamber.
The greater danger is that after months of hearings, accusations, and political conflict, the country will have spent enormous energy deciding who won the political battle while putting on the back burner the problems that matter most to ordinary Filipinos.
The hearings will end, the political battles will continue, but the country’s problems will remain.
Whatever the verdict, the country pays.
