[Just Saying] Why President Marcos must be vocal about the impeachment

In the high-pressure environment of Malacañang, the President’s desk is perpetually buried under “multifarious” and urgent commitments. From navigating the current National Energy Emergency to stabilizing fuel excise taxes and managing complex geopolitical shifts, the Chief Executive’s schedule is understandably consumed by the immediate needs of the State. 

It is easy to see why, in such a climate, the Palace might view the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte as a “legislative distraction” to be avoided.

However, the health of the Republic’s soul is just as vital as the health of its economy. While the President must manage the machinery of the State, he is also the ultimate guardian of its character. To remain strictly “neutral” or silent during this process is to ignore the most important “safety valve” our democracy possesses.

The impeachment process is not merely a political tool for removal; it is a constitutional mechanism designed to prevent the pressure of public grievance from turning into social unrest. It is the “safety valve” allowing the rule of law to address allegations of the highest order — in this case, charges of malversation of huge amounts of public funds, bribery, and alleged assassination plots that target the very heart of the government.

By monitoring and  publicly commenting on the importance of these proceedings, the President does not “interfere” with a co-equal branch. Rather, he validates the constitutional process. 

When the President speaks on the necessity of the House committee on justice’s hearings, he signals to the Filipino people that the Constitution is not just a simple document, but a living shield, that no office, no matter how high, is a sanctuary from accountability and that “public trust” is the only thing that matters in governance. 

Furthermore, if the President says that he is not concerned with the impeachment, that will be unbelievable as it suggests a lack of engagement with the moral and legal challenges facing the country. This is not the time to be modest. 

The weight of the office must be felt by all so that those who are charged and found  guilty of betraying the public trust, if the evidence warrant, will not hold office again.

The goal of a proactive presidency in this context is not to demand a conviction for the sake of politics. Neither is it to prevent acquittal if warranted. It is to ensure that impunity finds no harbor in the system. Let the proofs be publicly exhibited.   

If the evidence presented in the current House hearings — such as the testimonies regarding the transport of large sums of money, the SALNs, the COA notice of disallowance, the witnesses’ affidavits or the alleged threats against state officials — merits an impeachment, the President should have the courage to express his views supporting consequent Senate trial. Conversely, if the process clears the Vice President, that too must be respected.

What the President must champion is the integrity of the inquiry itself. His voice is needed to reassure a wary public that this is not a “partisan circus,” but a necessary constitutional cleansing. In taking this stand, however, the President must recognize that vocally advocating for the continuation of the impeachment invites intense scrutiny and backlash. 

Critics will undoubtedly claim he is exerting undue influence or acting out of bias, portraying the impeachment as a targeted persecution of Vice President Sara Duterte and a categorical waste of time.  

The President must transcend these accusations, particularly the dissent from the Vice President’s ardent followers. He must remain focused on the conviction that the continuation of these proceedings does not signal a democracy in disarray, but rather an actively functioning Constitution. 

Letting the process move forward enables the citizenry to truly appreciate the vitality and strength of our supreme law.

From a practical standpoint, a President who ignores a monumental impeachment runs the risk of being seen as complicit in the erosion of the law. If the people feel that “high offenses” can be mocked or that “public money” can be stolen without a whisper from the top, the social contract begins to fray.

Also, in this delicate constitutional landscape, the pivotal role of the Supreme Court must be acknowledged. Its July 2025 and January 2026 decisions checking the House of Representatives and favoring VP Sara Duterte have attained finality.   

While some sectors criticized these rulings as judicial overreach, it is precisely within this tension that the President’s vocal presence siding with these criticisms — assuming that it is also his  belief — finds its most profound justification. 

His engagement is not meddling. It is acting within the penumbra of the constitutional check-and-balance system. By speaking out, the President serves as a moral and political anchor, ensuring that the quest for accountability — though bound by the Court’s legal parameters he, at the same time, respects — remains a vibrant and active pursuit of the people’s will. 

It is a necessary soft check on the Supreme Court, for after all, gone are the days when magistrates had been treated as privileged saintly public officials. They, too, are accountable and impeachable public servants who can commit mistakes, be unduly influenced and, God forbid, be biased and corrupt, capable of weakening, through the exercise of their collective decisional prerogative, our democratic institutions.   

The presidency is also one of profound symbolism. By taking the time to expressly and publicly emphasize that the impeachment process must be seen through to its very end — “without fear or favor” — President Marcos Jr. can turn a period of political crisis into a moment of national renewal. 

He should not miss this opportunity. And perhaps this advocacy against impunity may turn out to be one of his most remembered legacies. – Rappler.com