On February 5, 2025, the House of Representatives in the Philippines made a historic decision to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte. The grounds for this significant action included alleged death threats towards President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr, misuse of office funds, unexplained wealth, agitation of rebellion, misuse of authority, and betrayal of public confidence.

Political analysts have pinpointed this impeachment as a major blow to the UniTeam, the electoral alliance formed by Duterte and Bongbong in 2022. Beyond the political fallout, the impeachment also signals a paradigm shift in the core functioning of the democratic institutions in Philippines.

Impeachment, traditionally seen as a moral checkpoint, appears to have evolved into a predominantly political tool without a clear ethical or democratic compass. This does not question its political application or the development of Duterte’s impeachment. Instead, it highlights how current political alliances can manipulate the process, undermining the original purpose of impeachment as a public safeguard as defined in the constitution.

Previously, impeachment was used by high-ranking officials to address clear breaches of ethical or legal responsibilities, often in conjunction with public mobilization. However, the circumstances surrounding Duterte’s impeachment suggest a more strategic use of this process, particularly with the upcoming 2025 midterm elections and Duterte’s expected presidential run in 2028 (since President Marcos is constitutionally restricted to a single six-year term).

In recent political history, the impeachment of public officials is not new to the Philippines. The 1987 Constitution, enacted after the fall of Ferdinand Marcos Sr’s regime, included impeachment as a mechanism of accountability for the top constitutional officers. The House of Representatives has impeached five officers, including Duterte, with only two cases progressing to a Senate trial. The first trial was of former president Joseph Estrada in 2001, prematurely ended by his resignation amidst mass protests. The second was of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2012, which resulted in a conviction.

Civil society backed both Estrada and Corona’s impeachments, rallying around the themes of moral governance and accountability. These impeachments were viewed as actions against a ‘gambler womanizer’ president and a chief justice who often sided with the president who appointed him — actions that, while not illegal, compromised the moral integrity of these high-ranking officials. Following Estrada’s resignation, active civic vigilance continued to defend against attempts to bypass term limits and protest against the corruption of his successor.

Contrasting with these previous cases, the complaint that led to Duterte’s impeachment in February lacks a clear moral or democratic protagonist or direction. Despite three impeachment complaints filed against Duterte by civic leaders, activists, and religious figures opposed to both Duterte and Bongbong, the House largely disregarded them. Duterte’s impeachment only gained momentum when Bongbong’s congressional allies filed their own complaint using a rare procedural move just as the House was about to go on a four-month recess. The primary allegation is centered on Duterte’s extraordinary claim of hiring a hitman to kill Bongbong’s family, although corruption is also among the charges.

The charges, now referred to the Senate for trial, raise grave concerns about Duterte’s misuse, or even embezzlement, of public funds and her suitability for public office. However, with Bongbong’s allies dominating Congress, the impartiality and integrity of the impeachment process are under scrutiny.

Duterte’s impeachment exemplifies how the moral premise of impeachment’s constitutional design is transitioning to a purely political strategy. The shift is significant because while impeachment’s political utility is undeniable, it was never meant to be a strategic tool. Like in the United States, it was meant to be a moral test — a ‘national inquest into the conduct of public men’, before a Senate that is ‘sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent’.

The accusation of a betrayal of public trust, one of the grounds for Duterte’s impeachment, is a unique legal concept that greatly impacts Philippine politics. The framers of the Constitution intended this ground to be a ‘catchall phrase’ for any actions that render an official unfit for office. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution does not set specific standards for these matters and that they are truly ‘political questions’ — better left to Congress to decide than the courts.

The core of the current problem lies in the diminishing trust in democratic institutions, which are supposed to exercise impeachment powers with moral authority. After all, the Constitution’s premise is that democratically elected institutions can assert moral accountability.

However, with the decline in the quality of the Philippine Senate over the years and its control by political dynasties, impeachment has increasingly distanced itself from its moral foundations. When such bodies are seen as compromised or biased, their decisions might further destabilize, rather than reinforce, democratic institutions.

This does not imply that the current impeachment process is illegal and should not proceed, or that Duterte should not be removed from office. But this change in the use of impeachment underlines the need for increased vigilance in the operations of supposed genuine democratic processes. This transformation also showcases the risks of relying solely on grand institutions for moral accountability instead of more popular modes, such as elections or sustained mass action and civic participation. Such reliance is dangerous if these institutions themselves are flawed or compromised.

Beyond the constitutional nature of impeachment, public perception and political narratives are likely to shift in this particular case. For political observers both within the country and region, the Duterte impeachment will serve as a valuable example of constitutional tools and their influence in shaping political destinies.

Paolo S Tamase is an Assistant Professor at the College of Law, University of Philippines Diliman.

Athena Charanne Presto is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology, University of the Philippines Diliman.

#<p>The article “Impeachment: A potent tool in the Philippines’ Marcos-Duterte divide” was first published on East Asia Forum.</p>