Deconstructing the False Dilemma of Vice President Sara Duterte’s Impeachment (Part I)

 

By Francis Jeus Ibañez

Why Justice in the Philippines Demands More Than Political Spectacle

In recent months, a wave of calls for the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte has swept through political conversations, media reports, and social platforms. With each trending hashtag and televised interview, the public is increasingly being presented with a deceptive choice: either impeach Sara Duterte or accept the death of justice in the Philippines. But this binary framing is not only misleading—it is intellectually dishonest, democratically immature, and constitutionally dangerous.

What we are witnessing is not a movement for justice, but a political spectacle wrapped in the rhetoric of accountability. It is time to deconstruct this false dilemma, expose the pitfalls of such reductionist thinking, and reclaim the broader, deeper pursuit of ethical governance.

 Beyond Binary Thinking: The Myth of “Impeach or Perish”

Philippine society has long been vulnerable to binary narratives, particularly in times of political tension. These dichotomies oversimplify complex realities. In the case of Vice President Duterte, the public is being sold a simplistic logic:

Either she is impeached, or justice is denied.

Either she steps down, or democracy collapses.

This narrative is dangerously flawed. It ignores the pluralism embedded in the Philippine constitutional system—a framework designed not around personalities, but around institutions. The impeachment-or-nothing logic reduces national concerns to the fate of one individual, erodes democratic discourse, and distorts public understanding of accountability.

A functional democracy must rise above personality politics. It must resist being hijacked by emotionally charged, media-driven simplifications that ultimately serve partisan agendas rather than public interest.

Constitutional Accountability Is Not Monolithic

Let us be clear: The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte was procedural, not a judgment on the substance of the claims. That distinction is crucial. It leaves the door open for legal scrutiny through proper channels—should valid grounds emerge.

More importantly, it affirms that impeachment is not the only, nor always the best, path to accountability. The Constitution offers a rich menu of oversight mechanisms:

Congressional investigations and budget hearings

Judicial review through the regular court system

Investigations by the Office of the Ombudsman

Vigilant civic engagement and a free press

To assert that justice hinges solely on impeachment is to delegitimize these constitutional tools. It is to ignore the safeguards that keep Philippine democracy resilient, even amidst political turmoil. Vice President Duterte has, so far, shown deference to these processes—not as political shields, but as rightful channels of democratic function.