Lawmakers Confirm Impeachment Season Now Officially Open Year-Round as Senate Prepares to Trial the Vice President Who Allegedly Threatened the President Who Replaced Her Father

Bohiney Magazine | The London Prat

MANILA, PHILIPPINES — The Philippine House of Representatives voted 257 to 25 on Tuesday to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte for the second time in two years, setting a national record for most impeachments of the same person in a single electoral term and prompting constitutional scholars to note, with some admiration, that the Philippines has developed what one described as “an unusually efficient impeachment pipeline.” The vote, representing 80 percent of the entire House, was remarkable not only for its scale but for what it revealed about the Vice President’s regional support: lawmakers from her supposed bailiwicks in Mindanao, Visayas, and Cebu largely failed to appear to defend her, leading political analysts to conclude that Sara Duterte’s political alliance had not so much collapsed as “quietly left the building before the vote, gone home, and turned off their phones.”

What She Is Accused Of: A Summary in Descending Order of Seriousness

The articles of impeachment cover several distinct categories of alleged misconduct that, taken together, represent what legal observers described as “a comprehensive portfolio of accusations.” Chief among them is the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds, a figure so large that budget analysts say it required special formatting in the official documents and that one congressional staffer described, off the record, as “a lot of money to classify as confidential, yes.” Additional charges include untruthful declarations in statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth; unexplained wealth; and death threats directed at President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, which constitutional lawyers noted was an unusual addition to a Philippine political resume even by Philippine standards.

The Vice President’s office denied all charges with vigour. In a statement issued two hours before the vote, the office described the impeachment as politically motivated, constitutionally irregular, and driven by “Imperial Manila forces” who feared the Duterte family’s enduring national relevance. In response, Rep. Terry Ridon released a breakdown showing that the 257 votes came from legislators across Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao in roughly proportional distribution, suggesting the Imperial Manila framing required a significantly expanded definition of Imperial Manila that now appeared to encompass most of the archipelago.

The Senate Trial: What Happens Next in a Process Nobody Fully Understands

With the impeachment articles transmitted to the Senate, the chamber will convene as an impeachment court, a constitutional role that senators have described variously as “important,” “complex,” and, in one senator’s off-camera remark, “complicated by the fact that several of us are also under investigation for things, which makes the moral authority question a little textured.” The trial is expected to begin within weeks, proceed for months, generate enormous media coverage, and produce an outcome that legal experts say is genuinely uncertain, which they noted is more than can be said for most Philippine political proceedings.

Political scientist Dr. Ramon Villanueva of the University of the Philippines said the impeachment represented a significant moment in Philippine democratic governance regardless of its outcome. “The institutions are functioning,” Villanueva told reporters. “Whether they are functioning well, or correctly, or in the interests of ordinary Filipinos rather than competing political dynasties — those are separate questions. But they are functioning. The House met. They voted. The documents are going to the Senate. That is the process working.” He was then asked whether he was optimistic, and he said he was from Manila and had been a political scientist for thirty years, and that optimism was not exactly the word he would reach for.

The Twenty-Five Who Voted No: A Portrait in Political Courage or Stubbornness

The twenty-five legislators who voted against impeachment — eight from Mindanao, six from Visayas, five from Luzon, six from the party-list bloc — became the subject of immediate analysis about their motivations, constituencies, and likely futures. Several are from areas with strong Duterte family ties. Others represent communities where political calculations favour loyalty to the Dutertes over alignment with the Marcos administration. At least two told reporters they had voted on “principle,” a word that Filipino political journalism has learned to approach with respectful scepticism and a follow-up question.

The nine who abstained, meanwhile, were described by one senator as “the most honest people in the building,” which the nine abstainers said they did not know whether to take as a compliment.

Read the full Philippine political comedy at Bohiney Magazine and catch the London take on Asian politics at The London Prat.

Further satirical coverage: The Onion, which is also struggling to keep up with the volume of Philippine political material.

What the Abstentions Tell Us About Philippine Political Courage

The nine abstentions in the 257-25-9 House vote have attracted particular analytical interest, partly because nine is a number large enough to matter symbolically and small enough to suggest that most lawmakers with reservations ultimately decided their reservations were not worth acting on. Political analysts note that abstention in a Philippine House impeachment vote is itself a form of political communication: it says “I am present, I have concerns, but I am not prepared to defend those concerns publicly,” a position that communicates ambivalence to all sides without satisfying any of them. Several of the nine abstainers are from competitive districts where both Marcos and Duterte supporters are numerous, leading to the hypothesis that abstention represented a genuine reading of constituency interest rather than personal indecision. At least two of the nine told reporters they were “reviewing the constitutional question further,” a formulation that reporters have learned to translate as “I have made a calculation and I am not going to share it with you.” One abstainer, when pressed, said he had meant to vote yes but pressed the wrong button. This explanation was not widely believed but was briefly and sincerely popular.

SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/sara-duterte-impeachment-second-time/