Political stability

On Friday night, Sept. 25, 2026, I was a moderator at the MOPC Senate Night with Senate President Sherwin “Win” Gatchalian as guest of honor and speaker. The next day, at Saturday lunch, I was a moderator at the 65th Philconsa Day with Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson as guest of honor and speaker.

Win Gatchalian is an operations management graduate from Boston University. He is an expert on processes, procedures and steps. A mayor for nine years, congressman for six years and a senator for nearly 12 years, Win knows, as an observer and a victim himself, the steps in stealing money from the government and in abusing power.

For his part, Ping Lacson had been in the police and military for 30 years, rising to the top as a four-star chief of the Philippine National Police. He was one of the PNP’s toughest investigators and law enforcers. As senator for 21 years, he has never helped himself to the corrupt pork barrel money and has vigorously stood for anti-corruption. If many of the current crop of politicians are in jail or being sued for plunder, thank him for his work as chair of the Senate Blue Ribbon committee.

I asked Senators Win and Ping the same question: is the country politically stable? Same answer: No.

“You cannot sugarcoat things,” Win cautioned. “We are not stable. We want a predictable political landscape. Investors want a predictable economic landscape.”

Win says the economy is in the doldrums for three main reasons – the corruption scandal, external headwinds and the Iran war that has resulted in unprecedented energy shortages and oil rising above $100 a barrel.

The flood control corruption alone has meant a loss of P2.75 trillion to the economy in economic production and opportunity cost, estimates SP Win. “This does not inspire business confidence.” Investors have adopted a wait-and-see attitude – until the decision on the impeachment trial of Sara Z. Duterte.

VP Duterte is facing trial for four crimes – misuse of or her pocketing P612.5 million of taxpayers’ money and producing 5,000 receipts from recipients with the most inane names one could imagine; unexplained wealth of up to P6.7 billion in addition to engaging in a panoply of businesses despite a constitutional ban on a vice president engaging in any business and grave threats. She had contracted assassin/s to kill President Marcos Jr., First Lady Louise Araneta Marcos and former speaker Martin Romualdez.

The evidence for each and all four crimes is compelling and convincing. The camp of the Duterte family is in panic mode. They fear their days are numbered. That is why there is talk of destabilization. Sara had even the gall to announce that she is prepared to take over the presidency from Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. That is psy-war in full blast. Do not appear guilty, even if you are.

However, in impeachment, according to Senator Lacson, the bar of conviction is lower than guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof that produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind.

Fourteen senator-judges need only to convince themselves of one thing – is this person fit to remain vice president? Is she fit to hold any elective or public office?

All sitting 20 senator-judges need not have moral certainty as to the guilt of Sara. Just a reasonable doubt is enough. No need to have proof that the probability of guilt is high. The evidence presented need not be super reliable. All that is needed is that the evidence creates doubt in the mind of the judge. Impeachment, after all, is more than a court process; it is a political process.

Sara Duterte is no ordinary politician. She is hugely popular – if you believe surveys. If you believe surveys, she is the next president of the Philippines. Sara herself believes in her heart that she is the next president. Accordingly, she treats her current impeachment trial as nothing more than unjust vexation, akin to a beautiful girl being whistled at by seemingly lascivious men.

Being popular, she can part the Red Sea. She can order her hordes of sycophants to storm the Senate gates, or even the Palace gates to create trouble and simulate instability.

How should the Senate impeachment court react then?

“Through a fair trial,” say both Senate President Win and Sen. Panfilo Lacson.

Lacson said a fair and evidence-based verdict could help bring about stability.

“A fair decision will bring stability to the country. As long as the decision is fair and based on evidence as presented, without any political color, then it will bring stability to the country,” Lacson said during Saturday’s Philippine Constitution Association’s 65th anniversary celebration in Makati.

He said the impeachment trial has yet to reach the stage where a decision can be made because the defense has not presented its evidence. “It is not yet complete. The defense has not presented its evidence. We only hear one side of the story. We need to hear the other side,” he said.

Ping says fast-tracking the trial should mean maximizing the limited trial time without compromising evidence. “Any decision should be guided by the Constitution and the evidence presented during the trial, rather than political considerations or public opinion,” he insists.

By now, many of the senator-judges are tired of the impeachment trial. It shows in their faces, in their mannerisms. On the 30th day of trial yesterday, some senators questioned the relevance of a prosecution witness, a police officer in charge of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit. Police Major Joericson Sangalang testified that Sara and her husband, Manases Carpio, had an armory of firearms worth P7.2 million, almost 10 percent of the value of Sara’s declared net worth. Ten pesos of every P100 of Sara’s net worth represent a gun and a bullet. That’s enough arsenal to make good on her vow to kill BBM.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]