And just like that, the country is consumed by another impeachment saga.
Over the course of three days, I’ve shifted from media briefings, client meetings, and conversations with fellow lawyers. And in all of them, questions about the impeachment came up. This country thrives on political theater. And impeachment is the greatest among them.
Unsurprisingly, there’s a lot of “legal” analysis thrown out already. In the age of disinformation, it’s difficult to separate the weighty from the speculative. Fortunately, the UP College of Law acted quickly through one of its Constitutional Law professors, Paolo Tamase. Valedictorian, Yale-educated, and a rising star in legal academia, Paolo’s work is a great help to those looking for reliable information regarding impeachment. (The FAQ is available here).
There are some things, however, that Professor Tamase’s FAQ doesn’t cover. And I’ve seen a lot of people (lawyers included) debating them in interviews and in posts. Questions such as the following: What was the point of filing impeachment this late? What’s the strategy behind a trial in the middle of campaign season? What’s the point of filing now if the Senate will change in June?
This is where the commentary gets hazy, if not lost in the thicket. Fortunately, Occam’s razor proves handy. Put simply, we fixate on analyzing the point of this impeachment if Congress is entering recess and elections are coming. In our focus and fascination on legal minutae we overlook the answer. The very fact that we are now buried under an avalanche of impeachment hot-takes and interviews is the point.
Allow me to elaborate.
There are at least two pivotal cases in the Supreme Court. In fact, one of them, the PhilHealth case, just started oral arguments this week. Then there’s the case challenging the 2025 budget because of alleged irregularities on education and military allocations. The High Court’s decision in both of these cases will directly impact millions of lives. And yet, a scan of all major new sites and socials show that the predominant concern is now, you guessed it, impeachment.
For an administration facing headwinds going into the midterm elections, it’s a strategic move. People are mad about having their health fund raided. They’re equally angry at how the education budget was shrunk. Then you have the military, whose professionalism is being tested by the seeming entry of politics into their promotion processes. Most of all, however, people are dissatisfied because instead of “P20 na bigas,” we have the Agriculture Secretary announcing a “food security emergency” on rice.
The solutions to these problems might well be on their way.
Education Secretary Sonny Angara is fighting hard to rescue a sector that has suffered too much and too long. He openly objected when Congress cut the Education sector’s budget for 2025. However, none of those solutions will make it in time for May.
Survival mode
This midterm election will determine whether the Duterte’s have a shot of coming back in 2028. Considering the animosity between the two dynasties, that’s a scenario the current government cannot afford.
And so here we are. With surveys showing a decline in approval ratings, the administration rests its survival on a proven truth: in this country, nothing beats the drama of an impeachment trial. The ancient Romans knew how to pacify a starving citizenry. And it’s not by giving them what they needed. Roman emperors felt they had better things to do with public funds rather than waste them by feeding the hungry. (A quality that’s not so different from the political and economic leaders of today.) But the emperors also knew that hunger knows no master. Except entertainment, that is. So, to whet the public’s appetite they would hold gladiatorial games in the coliseum.
Gladiators. Professionals who would stake their lives for the entertainment, not of the emperor but, the public. Because so long as the public is entertained, they will not be rioting. A scan of online activities show that this tactic remains effective. Impeachment related coverage easily gathers 400 to 600 thousand views just a few hours of posting. Meanwhile, PhilHealth, budget, rice crisis are on the down trend. Impeachment has become our government’s version of gladiatorial games.
To say this isn’t to imply that the impeachment filed by Congress has no basis, or that the constitutional tool is pointless. I’ve read the charges and the articles of impeachment. They are quite grave. It’s a difficult case for the vice president largely because it’s her own words that are working against her. Her defense team has quite a challenge in front of them.
Still, the traditional opposition, the business community, and those who simply have no stake in this dynastic feud will be torn about supporting a move that exploits our national addiction to political theater. The impeachment serves the purposes of the administration. This is true. Yet, ultimately, that shouldn’t matter.
Enforce Constitution now
First, because the House has overwhelmingly chosen to move forward and impeach the Vice President. Correspondingly, the Senate must act as the text of the Constitution commands. “Forthwith” isn’t vague. And by no stretch can its plain meaning be bent to mean “after our break.” What defined the Duterte era was how the Constitution was repeatedly bent and bastardized then. There’s no better justice than enforcing the clear terms of the Constitution now, even if we are torn about the motives of the actors.
And second, what truly matters is that there are three more years left in the President’s term. He faces challenges within and without. In the WPS, China waits for any weakness to exploit. POGOs, spies, and other elements are eager to wage a comeback. In this scenario, the core question is: can the country afford to have a Vice President who, by her own words, openly dreams and plots to assassinate the President?
In the coming weeks, we’ll be hearing that tired (and cringeworthy) phrase “impeachment is political” till kingdom come. But with this penultimate question, politics shouldn’t matter. If one prefers stability. If one abhors chaos. If one adheres to constitutional order. Then the answer should be clear. – Rappler.com
John Molo teaches Constitutional Law and Appellate Advocacy. He is a founding partner of Mosveldtt Law and has handled several landmark cases before the Supreme Court.