Constitutional processes and accountability: Who Says We Have to Choose?

Every so often, a public argument becomes so popular that people stop asking the most important question:

Is the argument itself sound?

That question stayed with me after reading repeated calls for the Senate to set aside the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte and instead focus its attention on the alleged anomalies involving flood control projects. The argument is straightforward: if one issue allegedly involves far greater public funds, then that issue deserves priority.

At first glance, that sounds sensible. The more I reflected on it, however, the more another question emerged. Why are we being asked to choose at all? Perhaps this is the educator in me.

For more than two decades, I have taught students that finding the correct answer is essential—but arriving at that answer through sound reasoning is even more commendable. A conclusion supported by weak logic remains weak, no matter how persuasive it first appears.

That lesson does not end at the classroom door. It applies just as much to public discourse.

Whether an individual supports or opposes the impeachment of the Vice President is a legitimate matter of opinion. In the end, the outcome should depend on the Constitution and on the evidence presented during the proceedings—not on slogans, popularity, or political preference.

Yet, the argument that we should suspend one constitutional process because another public issue appears larger is a different matter altogether. Our constitutional system was never designed to compel us to make a choice.

The Senate, when sitting as an impeachment court, performs a specific constitutional duty. Its responsibility is to determine, based on the evidence presented, whether an impeachable public official should remain in office.

Allegations involving flood control projects deserve equally serious attention. If they are supported by credible evidence, they should be investigated thoroughly, impartially, and without fear or favor. If they are unfounded, that too should be established through due process. The Commission on Audit, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Department of Justice, the National Bureau of Investigation, and Congress all have distinct responsibilities.

These responsibilities do not compete with one another. They complement one another.

Recent public discussion surrounding the so-called “maleta” allegations illustrates why institutions exist. Serious allegations deserve serious investigation. Serious constitutional questions deserve serious constitutional processes. Neither should be sacrificed for the other.

What concerns me is not this particular impeachment.

Public officials will come and go. Administrations will change. The Constitution will remain.

If we begin accepting the idea that one constitutional duty may be postponed because another controversy appears more important, what principle prevents us from making the same argument tomorrow? That is a precedent worth thinking about.

The rule of law is not measured by the amount allegedly involved in a controversy. Millions, billions, or trillions of pesos may determine the scale of an investigation and, if liability is established, the consequences that follow. They should not determine whether constitutional duties are performed at all. Accountability is not a limited resource.

A democracy should be capable of conducting an impeachment trial while investigating allegations of corruption, auditing public expenditures, prosecuting criminal offenses where warranted, and strengthening institutions at the same time. That is how constitutional government is supposed to function.

Reasonable people may disagree on whether an impeachable official should ultimately be convicted or acquitted. What should concern all of us, however, is any line of reasoning that asks our institutions to neglect one constitutional responsibility simply because another issue has captured greater public attention.

The health of a democracy depends not only on the integrity of its leaders, but also on the integrity of its institutions. The Constitution never asked us to choose between one form of accountability and another.

Neither should we.

Catherine Binayan,
catherine@unizwa.edu.om