Atty. Glen Hubahib, a US-based lawyer from Bohol, interprets the online discussions surrounding the impeachment of Vice President Sarah Duterte as evidence of a vibrant democracy in the Philippines.
During an online interview on Wednesday with Ardy Araneta-Batoy on DYTR’s “Open Forum” program, Hubahib shared his thoughts on the impeachment proceedings against Duterte in the House of Representatives.
He argued that the public discourse, whether for or against the impeachment, should be seen as a testament to democratic health.
Public officials, he added, must be prepared to handle criticism stemming from their actions.
Notable Boholano leaders, including Gov. Aris Aumentado, whose wife Cong. Van-van signed the impeachment articles, have faced social media backlash for supporting Duterte’s impeachment.
Hubahib pointed out that social media has largely facilitated the spread and expression of public opinion, unlike in the past when such platforms did not exist.
Railroading Allegations
Hubahib criticized the impeachment process as potentially “railroading,” suggesting that the congressmen might have acted too hastily without thorough scrutiny, debate, or discussion.
He noted that the political nature of impeachment means votes often follow party lines, drawing parallels to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s impeachments, which were dismissed in the Senate due to party control.
Hubahib also hinted at possible behind-the-scenes dealings, including monetary incentives, in persuading lawmakers to sign the impeachment articles, though he acknowledged these as allegations without concrete evidence.
Public Reaction
Hubahib criticized Gov. Aumentado’s defense of the congressmen’s actions as misguided, attributing this to Aumentado’s lack of legal expertise.
He suggested the governor should have remained silent rather than commenting on legal matters.
Hypothetical Stance
If Hubahib were a congressman, he stated he would not have rushed to sign the impeachment articles without clear evidence or sufficient debate.
He would consider signing only if there were substantial political and evidential backing to protect the signatories from political fallout.
Hubahib concluded by dismissing claims that congressmen signed the articles out of political favor or fear of missing benefits as unfounded.