About the impeachment

Impeachment of VP Sara Duterte: What Happened and Why It Matters

On February 5, 2025, Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio became the first sitting Philippine vice president to face impeachment by the House of Representatives, marking a historic and highly controversial political episode. Philstar.com+10Philstar.com+10TIME+10

The Complaints: What Was She Accused Of?

Multiple groups filed three separate impeachment complaints between December 2024 and January 2025, by civil society organizations, religious leaders, lawyers, and victims’ families. 

Philstar.com+3Philstar.com+3Wikipedia+3

Allegations included:

• Misuse and malversation of over ₱612 million in confidential funds for the Office of the Vice President and DepEd. Philstar.com+10Philstar.com+10Wikipedia+10
• 
  
• Betrayal of public trust, graft & corruption, and undermining legislative oversight. AP News+15Philstar.com+15Philstar.com+15
• 
  
• Threats and extremist rhetoric, including alleged plotting to assassinate officials and inciting sedition. Wikipedia+2YouTube+2

The complaints consolidated into a fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by 215 House members—a clear majority above the constitutional minimum of 102—fast-tracking it to the Senate without committee referrals. rappler.com+12PCIJ.org+12Philstar.com+12

The Legal Process: From House to Senate

Once the third complaint was filed, the House leadership invoked the "third mode" impeachment rule, allowing the complaint—now treated as Articles of Impeachment—to go directly to the Senate. PCIJ.org

What comes next:

House-appointed prosecutors (11 members) will argue the case in the Senate. Philstar.com

The Senate serves as the impeachment court; a two-thirds vote (16 of 24) is required to convict and remove Duterte.

Conviction leads to lifetime disqualification from public office, though no penalties like jail time are automatically imposed. Philstar.com+1

Civil society leaders—including Caritas Philippines—have called for a swift, impartial process, warning that delays weaken public trust. Reddit

What It Signals Politically

The impeachment came amid a bitter breakdown between Sara Duterte and allies of President Marcos Jr., who once traveled together during the 2022 elections. pna.gov.ph+9TIME+9YouTube+9

Her opponents—many now aligned with Marcos—worked to quickly secure the one-third vote needed. Notably, Sandro Marcos, the president’s son, endorsed the complaint. Philstar.com+1

Still, many Dutertes maintain a strong political base. Despite impeachment, Rodrigo Duterte was re-elected mayor of Davao while detained at the ICC, and other family allies won limelight Senate seats. TIME+1

Supreme Court Intervention: A Critical Twist

On July 25, 2025, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the impeachment complaint—not on merits but because it violated the constitutional rule banning multiple impeachment attempts within one year. Since three complaints had already been verified, the fourth was deemed unconstitutional. reuters.com

This ruling halts the Senate trial entirely for now and strengthens Sara Duterte’s political position, especially as a frontrunner for the 2028 presidential race. reuters.com

Key Takeaways

Final Perspective

Sara Duterte’s impeachment underscores a fractured political landscape in the Philippines. While accountability mechanisms are at work, the process also mirrors power struggles between two dynasties.

Her eventual fate is now paused—not decided—pending procedural timing. The constitutional safeguard that protected her may also embolden more legal challenges in the future.

A failed system

Cracks in the Nation: When Corruption Is Made Concrete

We walk in the Philippines on streets that deceive our feet and dump our faith into the concrete. We bring our children to schools where the paint is quicker in drying than the promises. We go to hospitals more concerned about the cost than the cure. This is not development—this is deceit incorporated into the blueprint of the system.

We live in a nation where bridges curve not due to traffic but under the weight of embezzled public money. Schools are built not to develop minds but to produce invoices. Hospitals are designed not to heal the ill but to hemorrhage government funds.

When concrete walls delaminate prior to the first day of classes being taught, we know there is something amiss. When a flood sweeps over a street freshly paved only the month before, we do not have to be engineers to feel betrayed. We know. Because we live it.

Google Photo

When Corruption Becomes Infrastructure

Philippine corruption is not a theoretical abstraction or a political slogan—it is infrastructure. It is in the rebar that is too flexible. It is in the classrooms that flood. It is in the bridges that collapse after ribbon-cutting ceremonies. This corruption is not merely a moral failing; it is the gradual, public hanging of the common good—signed off in triplicate and buried in bureaucracy.

We're told not to ask questions. We're told to let the experts handle it. We're told that we wouldn't be able to grasp it. But we're paying the price—and with our taxes, with our security, and sometimes with our lives.

The Real Cost: Broken Trust

Trust lost can be more difficult to restore than any bridge or monument. Each time a shortcut is used, each time the public money is diverted to be used for individual enrichment, the nation forfeits more than money—it loses hope. The people lose trust in government, in institutions, in the very notion that things will get better.

This rot is not concealed—it pervades everything. And still, silence is promoted. Passivity is the norm. Dissent is frowned upon.

The Call to Action: Inspect. Question. Speak.

It is not un-American to demand more.

It is our responsibility to ask questions about the projects that are undertaken in our name and with our funds. We are entitled to call for transparency. To visit roads and schools. To photograph decaying infrastructure. To object when our lives are put at risk by greed at the top.

Let it be said clearly: Silence is the concrete they would like to pour over our resistance. Each time we remain silent, they make a gain. Each time we shrug our shoulders at a clogged drainage system or a collapsed classroom ceiling, they get stronger.

So we must investigate. We must ask questions. We must record. We must voice our opinions.

Because if we don't, we become guilty of the burial of responsibility.

Hope, Built with Honesty

A country isn't constructed upon glitzy ribbon-cutting and golden-worded speeches. A country is constructed upon honor, openness, and service. We are worthy of bridges that won't buckle. Hospitals that will heal. Schools that will ignite. Storm-tested roads that hold.

They aren't frills—they are rights. And we won't get them through someone else being magnanimous with us. We need to make them.

Let's make a nation in which public projects really work for the public. Let's bring down the walls of silence and put up steel-strong scrutiny. Let's pave roads not with lies—but with truth, fairness, and accountability.

Is he even relevant?

Richard Heydarian: Should We Trust His Insights?

Richard Heydarian is a name that tends to generate controversy among political and academic circles. A well-known political analyst, columnist, and writer, Heydarian is regarded for his controversial views on geopolitics, international relations, and Philippine politics. But the question is — should we trust his insights? 

Richard Heydarian, Wikipedia

This blog takes a closer look at Heydarian's background, his perspectives, and how to critically evaluate his views.

Who is Richard Heydarian?

Richard Heydarian is a political science professor who is also a prolific author. He writes for major publications such as Al Jazeera, The New York Times, and Foreign Affairs. With a keen interest in Southeast Asian geopolitics, he has also done analyses on regional security, economic patterns, and leadership dynamics.

He has also written influential books like "The Rise of Duterte: A Populist Revolt Against Elite Democracy" and "The Indo-Pacific: Trump, China, and the New Struggle for Global Mastery", which have established his position as one of the greatest voices in the industry.

Why People Trust Heydarian?

1. Academic Credibility
   Heydarian is well-educated in political science, hence having a balanced point of view towards international and regional affairs. He is frequently sought after in academia and media platforms.
2. Media Presence
   A frequent face on global news networks, Heydarian provides clear and concise analysis that makes sense of intricate political events. His skill at deconstructing complex ideas into palatable insights is admirable.
3. Independent Perspective
   Unlike pundits who are aligned with one political party or another, Heydarian comes across as an independent analyst. His frank and critical appraisal of governments — foreign and domestic — has proven his interest in free interpretation.

Reasons for Skepticism

1. Personal BiasAlthough no analyst is completely bias-free, Heydarian's strong views tend to be polarizing at times. His critics suggest that his views might be biased towards certain narratives, which may affect the objectivity of his analysis.
2. Controversial Statements
   One of the examples that generated a lot of backlash was Heydarian's statement equating some areas of Mindanao to "sub-Saharan Africa" in economic underdevelopment. Although he probably meant to highlight the economic plight of the region, most Filipinos took offense and felt the comparison was reductionist. The social media backlash was quick, with individuals condemning him for reductionism in Mindanao's complex socio-economic context. This is an example of how tone and framing can at times overpower the intended message.
3. Selective Criticism
   Certain critics argue that Heydarian's criticisms might be more selective in targeting particular political leaders or policies, and less on other pertinent views.
4. Media Framing
   As a regular media commentator, Heydarian's opinions may at times be manipulated or magnified to suit particular narratives. It is important that readers and listeners contextualize and frame his utterances.

How to Analyze Heydarian's Insights?

1. Cross-Reference with Other Sources
   Don't just depend on the view of a single analyst. Compare Heydarian's opinions to that of other reputable analysts and institutions to gain a wider perspective.
2. Take into Account the Context
   Evaluate the context within which Heydarian is presenting his opinions. Is he giving a personal view, an academic analysis, or a media commentary? Any context can shape his tone and emphasis.
3. Identify Potential Bias
   Acknowledge that biases are inherent. The trick is to recognize them and balance their influence on the argument being made. Seek evidence-based reasoning and credible sources in his analysis.

Conclusion

So, do we trust Richard Heydarian? The answer is not a straightforward yes or no. To trust an analyst is not to blindly accept — it is to critically engage with what they have to say. Heydarian's experience and knowledge provide useful insights, but they are only one of many voices you should listen to when developing your own opinions.

In an age of information overload, the capacity to think critically and evaluate perspectives from multiple dimensions matters. You may agree or disagree with Heydarian, but his political contributions offer a foundation for richer dialogue.

At the end of the day, trust isn't granted — it's developed by being transparent, credible, and providing consistent insight. Be informed, be critical, and allow plurality of thought to inform your worldview.

The Irony of UP's Paper: A Strong Case for Constitutional Reform

Dear UP: Your Own Research Supports Charter Change

The University of the Philippines (UP), our country's top institution of higher learning, recently came out with a discussion paper that has lit up the reform movement. On initial reading, the paper seems to doubt or warn against constitutional revisions—especially those on economic liberalization and structural reform in governance.

But here's the twist: if you read the paper closely, it actually supports the call for constitutional change.

Let's discuss why.

The Paper Doesn't Oppose Charter Change—It Reinforces It

Contrary to some media analyses, the UP discussion paper is not an argument against constitutional liberalization. It rather emphasizes the imperatives of:

• A Parliamentary-Federal system, and
• Open Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policies

These are precisely the pillars that constitutional reform advocates have been championing for decades.

So let’s stop pretending this paper undermines the reform movement. It confirms what we’ve known all along—that systemic change is necessary if the Philippines is ever to escape the economic and political stagnation we’ve been trapped in since 1987.

Why the Current Constitution Holds Us Back?

Here's the uncomfortable truth: the 1987 Constitution is architecturally a relic and essentially defective. It has yielded a government plagued by:

• Name-recall politics over competence
• Patronage appointments, stifling merit-based leadership
• Executive-legislative gridlock, preventing long-term policy consistency
• Policy inconsistency, courtesy of non-renewable six-year presidential terms
• Weak system of accountability, restricted to politicized impeachment
• Red tape and bloated bureaucracy, discouraging local and foreign investors

These're not political mere annoyances. They're inherent obstacles to making the Philippines an economically competitive, dynamic, and responsive country.

What Other Countries Did Right—and Why We Should Learn from Them

South Korea, Japan, and China are typically referred to as economic miracles. But let's be real about how they achieved this.

Prior to opening up their markets to global competition, they constructed well-established, centralized developmental states. They possessed:

• Long-term planning
• Policy consistency
• Effective governance frameworks
• Strong system of accountability

We, however, are attempting to open up our economy and yet holding on to a political system that is the opposite of these ideals.

In political science, this has been called a "fragile state." Gunnar Myrdal advocated developmental states that employ state power not for the enrichment of elites, but to spur inclusive growth. This takes the strength of institutions—something that the 1987 Constitution simply does not enable us to construct.

A Call to the University of the Philippines: Lead, Don't Stall

UP, you are an intellectual beacon. But with great power comes great responsibility.

Rather than doubling down on fear or vagueness, you might help spearhead a rational, fact-based debate about constitutional reform—not put it off with stale fears and reused talking points.

The hysteria about term extensions, foreign ownership of land, or alleged "loss of sovereignty" has been dismantled repeatedly. The actual threat is keeping a system that still rewards incompetence, fosters corruption, and hinders our country's progress.

UP official website

The Bottom Line: Let's Be Honest

If you take your own research seriously, then you'll have to confess: Charter Change is not a political power grab. It is a nation-building necessity.

So to the scholars and economists of UP: this is not a criticism of your scholarship. It's an appeal to put it to use.

Support constitutional reform—not for any political faction, but for the future of the Filipino people.

Final Thought

The Philippines cannot be a prosperous state with an impotent 1987 Constitution.

If we desire genuine change, it's not enough that we have better leaders. We need better systems. Systems that make people accountable, pay attention to competence, invite investment, and effectively deliver services.

That will not happen under the 1987 Constitution.

It's time we face that reality—and move on.

_________________________________>
UP's Academic Paper: https://econ.upd.edu.ph/.../ind.../dp/article/view/1552/1037