Why bother with impeachment?

Impeachment is once again dominating political conversation. Amid constitutional arguments, procedural debates and speculation over Vice President Sara Duterte’s political future, a more fundamental question is easily overlooked: why bother with impeachment at all? Beyond removing an official, what value does this constitutional process have for the rule of law and the Philippines’ development as a democratic state?

Why should ordinary Filipinos care about a constitutional process seemingly distant from jobs, prices and public service? The answer lies in Article XI of the 1987 Constitution: “Public office is a public trust.” Public officials are entrusted with enormous power, but that power comes with accountability. For the country’s highest officials, impeachment is the Constitution’s ultimate mechanism for enforcing that trust, allowing removal for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust.

The Economist reported 272 impeachment complaints against 132 heads of state worldwide from 1990 to 2019, most of whom retained office. In the Philippines, despite numerous complaints, few cases have truly tested the process: those involving president Joseph Estrada, ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, Chief Justice Renato Corona and Comelec chairman Andres Bautista.

These cases show that impeachment is both political and profoundly legal. Its legitimacy rests on constitutional safeguards – grounds, procedure, evidence, due process and institutional judgment – not popularity or political machinery. Yet, these ideals are not consistently reflected in reality.

The impeachment process consumes months of congressional attention and requires the production of thousands of documents. Amid recurring floods and unresolved flood control controversies, why devote scarce institutional time to impeachment instead of protecting livelihoods, education and national security? Vice President Sara Duterte herself has questioned the proceedings’ legitimacy, reflected in her non-attendance at the Senate impeachment court.

However, non-participation signals distrust in institutions – and institutional distrust weakens democracy. Impeachment is imperfect, but it remains a vital democratic tool: a public test of whether those entrusted with the highest offices remain worthy of that trust, or who have used public office for private gain.

Past impeachments reveal an uncomfortable pattern: political alliances can matter as much as, if not more than, the evidence. The recurring surnames in Congress from 2000 to 2026 point to a deeper problem – that across a quarter century of scandals, many of the same political families continue to shape both accountability and its outcomes. This pattern persists – even impeachment does not necessarily end a political career, as officials implicated in impeachment proceedings may still return to public office.

So why bother with impeachment? Because it is one of the Constitution’s strongest and most piercing tools for accountability. But any tool is only as good as the hands that wield it. Accountability fortifies trustworthy institutions and, ultimately, genuine development.

Whatever the outcome, our task is simple: observe, remember, question – and vote accordingly.

*      *      *

Anushka Kapahi is in private legal practice. Gabrielle Tañada is a development professional. Both are part-time faculty under the De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde School of Diplomacy and Governance.