THE impeachment battle involving Vice President Sara Duterte is a sobering picture of our brand of politics and governance at its most fundamental — a dynastic war. At its core, a zero-sum struggle among powerful political forces, with democratic institutions serving as both the battlefield and the weapons of war.
It’s also an uncomfortable reminder of how accountability often works, or fails to work. Erring high officials are rarely brought to account. More often, accountability becomes possible only when a political alliance collapses and former allies begin exposing each other's sins. That’s the tragedy. Assessing the impeachment case objectively must ask the important question: What does the evidence show?
The case against her is built upon a paper trail involving confidential funds, audit findings, financial documentation, acknowledgment receipts and the use of public money. It raises serious questions about malfeasance and misfeasance of public funds, confidential and otherwise. The larger issue transcends personalities — when public funds wantonly ignore the guardrails, abuse and impunity are inevitable.
There’s another dimension to this controversy: Duterte’s political leadership and temperament. She has a political persona defined by unsurprising vacuity, anger management issues, defiance, confrontation, and willingness to challenge the rules head-on. Her leadership projection is confrontational and adversarial. This is where the impeachment controversy becomes especially consequential. It has uncovered her grossly irresponsible and incompetent exercise of power, and contempt for the rule of law.
Because the trial is both a political and constitutional exercise to determine whether the accused betrayed public trust, the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, must rise above political passions and decide on the basis of the Constitution, the law and the evidence presented before it. That requires understanding the nature of the Senate.
The reality is that senators don’t suddenly cease to be politicians when they sit in judgment. They’re elected officials with constituencies, alliances, ambitions and electoral futures to consider. Every senator must weigh not only the evidence presented but also the consequences of a decision — for the country, for political alliances and, inevitably, for their own futures.
That’s why the required threshold for conviction — 16 votes or 2/3 of the entire Senate — is formidable. The Constitution was designed to prevent impeachment from becoming a casual instrument of political revenge. However, the high threshold creates its own dilemma. The consequences of either conviction or acquittal will be profound.
A conviction would remove Duterte from office, potentially bar her from future public office, and reshape the political landscape leading to 2028. It will establish that confidential and intelligence funds are subject to constitutional accountability. An acquittal, on the other hand, would be equally consequential. Politically, it could transform the vice president into a martyr, energize her base, spike her alleged popularity, and strengthen her position as the next president of the Philippines.
There’s also a broader national security dimension that can’t simply be ignored. Our politics today don’t exist in isolation from geopolitical competition. The country's position in the West Philippine Sea — its alliance relationships, defense modernization and relationship with China — have become deeply intertwined with domestic political alignments. Foreign influence in the modern era is rarely as obvious as secretly handing cash over to corrupt officials. It takes other forms.
Influence operations exploit social media, business relationships, political networks, information ecosystems and public divisions. Cognitive warfare and gray-zone operations don’t necessarily seek to conquer territory immediately, but to influence perceptions, weaken institutions and divide societies from within. This is why allegations of foreign influence are being investigated with the seriousness it deserves. National security can’t become another partisan weapon.
We’re navigating an increasingly dangerous strategic environment. China is intensifying its warlike behavior at sea, on land and in the air for challenging its great lie — the 9-dash line — to justify claimed “ownership” of our exclusive economic one, Palawan and Batanes. Its influence operations have become more sophisticated. The threats of cyberwarfare and cognitive warfare are real and rising. In these times, the integrity and independence of Philippine institutions matter more than ever.
Ultimately, this impeachment battle exposes a deeper and enduring problem — political power remains concentrated in the hands of political dynasties. Elections are controlled by powerful interests. Unholy alliances are forged to preserve power. But genuine accountability shouldn’t depend on whether the dynasties remain friends or not. Public officials should be held accountable whether they belong to the administration, the opposition, or a dynasty that has dominated Philippine politics for generations.
Thus, the president and his administration are also on trial here before the courts of good governance and public opinion. The administration that enabled, tolerated or failed to prevent questionable practices must answer for its own conduct. If guilt is ultimately established, responsibility can’t be assigned selectively to one official while others claim innocence. Political leaders, institutions and governing coalitions must account for the decisions they made, the warnings they ignored, and the standards they applied.
The people, too, bear some responsibility. Civic behavior helps determine whether institutions are strengthened or corrupted. Voters who treat public office as a family inheritance, reward disinformation, excuse abuses of favored politicians or reduce issues to partisan loyalty, sustain the very system they later condemn. They’re responsible for the choices, tolerances and habits that shape political life. Accountability must be shared — not to dilute the culpability of those in power — but to recognize that democracy ultimately reflects the civic character of the society that sustains it.
That to me is the real issue behind the impeachment of Duterte. It’s a test of whether we, and our democratic institutions, can rise above the dynastic wars that so often manipulate us. For as long as accountability comes only when powerful political factions turn against one another, we, the Filipino people, will forever be the collateral damage in the grip of, and a war among, dynasties. And that’s the harshest consequence of all.
So once again, the ultimate question arises: What are we prepared to do?
Rafael M. Alunan III is a governor of the Management Association of the Philippines and chairs the board’s committee on national resilience. He is a former Interior and Local government secretary.