EDITORIAL: Conscience Verdict

The looming impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte is no longer a matter of political rumor or speculative maneuvering. It has entered the difficult but necessary territory of constitutional accountability — where numbers, evidence, and conscience collide.

At the center of the unfolding political drama is the House of Representatives’ effort to secure the 106 votes required to elevate the articles of impeachment to the Senate. For some lawmakers, the target appears reachable. For others, it remains politically perilous. Yet beyond the arithmetic lies a deeper national question: Can the country still distinguish between political loyalty and constitutional duty?

Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon believes the evidence presented before the House Justice Committee is compelling enough to persuade undecided lawmakers. Allegations involving unexplained wealth, controversial confidential funds, threats against the President and other officials, and the Commission on Audit’s findings on hundreds of millions in questioned funds have now become part of the public discourse. These are not trivial accusations. They are serious matters that deserve serious examination.

But impeachment must never become a popularity contest, nor should it be reduced to partisan revenge. The Constitution designed impeachment as an extraordinary mechanism — a safeguard against abuse of power and betrayal of public trust. It is not intended to settle political scores, silence opponents, or advance electoral ambitions.

That is why the insistence of several lawmakers on a “conscience vote” deserves recognition. Members of Congress are elected not merely to follow party lines but to exercise independent judgment. The people expect them to weigh evidence carefully, not merely count allies and enemies.

At the same time, those opposing impeachment cannot simply dismiss the proceedings as a “waste of time.” Democracy becomes weaker when legitimate constitutional processes are casually trivialized. If the allegations are baseless, then the proper venue to disprove them is through a transparent trial — not through premature political declarations.

The Senate, for its part, appears aware of the gravity of its constitutional role. Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson rightly emphasized the importance of procedure, impartiality, and evidence. His reminder that senator-judges must avoid bias is essential in a political environment increasingly poisoned by tribal loyalties and online propaganda.

The impeachment court must not become a theater for grandstanding. Nor should it be transformed into a battlefield for political dynasties. It must remain what the Constitution intended: a forum for truth, evidence, and accountability.

Perhaps the most important lesson in this moment is that institutions matter more than personalities. Governments survive because institutions are respected even when political tensions rise. If lawmakers ignore serious allegations simply because the accused remains politically influential, accountability dies. But if impeachment is pursued recklessly without sufficient proof, justice also suffers.

The Filipino people deserve neither blind loyalty nor political persecution. They deserve due process.

Ultimately, the outcome of this impeachment will not only determine the political fate of Vice President Duterte. It will test whether public officials — from the House prosecutors to senator-judges — still possess the courage to place constitutional responsibility above political convenience.

In the end, the country must not be guided by noise, loyalty, or fear.

Only by evidence.