(Editorial)
THE formal impeachment proceedings opened against Vice President Sara Duterte Tuesday marked a significant moment in Philippine political history—the first time an initiative such as that targeted the country’s second-highest official.
But the historic nature of the hearing was immediately punctuated by the absence of exactly the person it sought to scrutinize.
Vice President Duterte’s decision not to appear at the opening session, calling it a politically motivated “fishing expedition,” is more than just an act of procedural defiance; it is a strategic move that instantly transforms the impeachment process and sends a strong signal about her position and whether the claims can be considered legitimate.
Her failure to testify could be considered a deliberate act of defiance, a refusal to legitimize what she and her allies say is a politically motivated witch hunt. Her non-appearance provides Vice President Duterte a unique opportunity to deny the House of Representatives the direct confrontation and cross-examination that would disrupt their narrative and provide documentary and testimonial evidence, which they constantly rely on without rebuttal.
That allows her to dictate the terms from outside, casting herself as a victim of political persecution rather than a person avoiding accountability. It’s a gamble, intending to fire up her base of support and cast her as a principled figure resisting an overreaching legislature.
The immediate effect of her absence is to frame the impeachment process—from its very beginning—with this standoff.
The House will have the difficult job of trying to make its case without ever having the respondent take the stand.
That could lead to an even longer and more complicated investigation, as they piece together evidence and witnesses who corroborate what might be up for debate without any direct involvement from the VP.
It also puts the public’s attention on procedure rather than substance—will the House be able to prove its case against an empty chair, and does that empty chair itself count as a form of non-cooperation, which could color perceptions of her absence?
Vice President Duterte’s decision to not appear at the hearing has implications that go far beyond the specific proceedings. It marks a widening political chasm and could further polarize public sentiment. For supporters of hers, her absence may have looked like a brave act against politics. For her critics, it may be seen as an avoidance of responsibility and a disregard for constitutional processes.
How this initial absence colors the course of impeachment, the public perception of both the vice president and House, and how all of this plays out within the realities of Philippine politics in the days and weeks to come remains to be seen. The empty chair says a lot and sets a contested tone likely to shape the drama as it unfolds.
