by Lino Sumaylo
Is there real utility in conducting an impeachment trial against an extremely popular Vice President?
If public surveys are to be believed—and if one listens to conversations on the streets and across social media—the Vice President continues to enjoy a strong level of public trust. Many even believe that she remains a leading contender for the presidency. While some may question this perception, it cannot be denied that a significant portion of the population continues to support her. Regardless of criticisms about her performance or the claims presented by her detractors, public confidence in her appears largely intact.
This raises a troubling question: What becomes of the impeachment process when public popularity overrides the weight of evidence? If, despite serious accusations and supporting evidence, the Senate ultimately acquits, what does this say about our Constitution? Does it expose a weakness in the system, or does it merely reveal the political nature embedded in it?
It is important to remember that impeachment is not strictly a judicial proceeding. It is, in essence, a political process. While it may resemble a trial, it is conducted by elected officials who are themselves accountable to the public. In such a setting, the outcome is not determined solely by evidence, but also by political considerations, public sentiment, and the personal convictions of those sitting in judgment.
This is precisely why the effectiveness of impeachment becomes questionable when the official under scrutiny enjoys overwhelming popularity. Senators, though sworn to uphold the Constitution, are not immune to political pressure. The desire for reelection, party loyalty, and public approval can all influence decision-making. In such circumstances, accountability risks being overshadowed by political survival.
Yet, to dismiss impeachment altogether as useless would be a mistake.
Impeachment was never intended to function as a criminal trial designed to impose punishment. Rather, it is a constitutional mechanism meant to establish accountability at the highest levels of government. A conviction does not carry criminal penalties; instead, it removes an official from office and disqualifies them from holding future public positions. Should criminal liability exist, it must be pursued separately in the regular courts.
Batangas second district representative Gerville “Jinky” Luistro, the head of the House Prosecution Panel. She leads the 11-member House of Representatives Prosecution Team in the ongoing Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. (Photo CTTO)
Seen from this perspective, the true value of impeachment lies not only in its outcome, but in the process itself. It provides a formal avenue for airing grievances, presenting evidence, and scrutinizing the conduct of public officials before the nation. Even in the face of acquittal, the proceedings can shape public discourse, inform voters, and set standards for ethical governance.
Atty. Sheila Sison leads the 16-member Defense Team for Vice President Sarah Duterte in her impeachment trial. Sison is supported by prominent lawyers from the Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar law firm. (Photo CTTO)
The real danger, however, lies in the public perception of the process. If people begin to believe that impeachment is merely a political exercise with predetermined outcomes—especially when influenced by popularity rather than principle—then confidence in our constitutional system may erode. The Constitution is not weakened because it failed to anticipate political realities; rather, it is tested by how faithfully those entrusted with its implementation uphold its spirit.
In the end, the question is not whether impeachment is useful in a purely practical sense. The more pressing question is whether our leaders—and the public—are willing to treat it as a solemn duty rather than a political tool.
For as long as accountability remains a cornerstone of democracy, impeachment will retain its purpose. Its true utility, however, depends not on the popularity of the accused, but on the integrity of those who sit in judgment—and on the vigilance of the people they serve.
Atty. Carlo Joaquin “CJ” P. Narvaza, currently one of the counsels for Vice President Sara Duterte in her impeachment case. He was noted by the Defense Team for doing the cross examination of NBI senior agent John Mark Calilong during the trial. (Photo CTTO)
Atty. Armando Virgil Ligutan, a Cebu based lawyer and private prosecutor in the House Impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. He said, he considers prosecuting VP Duterte “an absolute badge of honor” and is doing it pro bono.
(Photo CTTO)