Two impeachments, one political game

The impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. in January 2026 invite inevitable comparison with the impeachment proceedings expected to be filed against Vice President Sara Duterte. While both cases unfold within the same constitutional framework, their origins, political dynamics, and trajectories reveal sharp contrasts in how impeachment functions in practice in the Philippine political system.

Impeachment in the Philippines is designed as a mechanism of accountability for high-ranking officials, including the president and vice president. 

Complaints are filed in the House of Representatives and evaluated by the House committee on justice for sufficiency in form and substance. Once a complaint is formally referred, a one-year ban prevents the filing of additional impeachment cases against the same official. Advancement beyond committee level, however, depends heavily on political alignment within Congress.

Two different political environments

Two impeachment complaints against President Marcos Jr. have been filed and referred to the House justice committee. 

The first complaint was filed on January 19, 2026, by lawyer Andre de Jesus and endorsed by Pusong Pinoy Representative Jett Nisay. 

The second complaint was filed on January 26, 2026, by the Makabayan bloc, endorsed by ACT Teachers Representative Antonio Tinio, Kabataan Representative Renee Co, and Gabriela Representative Sarah Elago.

Both complaints accuse the President of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, and graft and corruption. The allegations center on the flood control corruption scandal, the Bongbong Marcos parametric formula in allocating infrastructure projects, and abuse of unprogrammed appropriations. 

Although serious in tone, the complaints face immediate skepticism due to the President’s overwhelming support in the House of Representatives. Their referral to the justice committee triggers the constitutional one-year ban, but few lawmakers expect the cases to advance toward a plenary vote, much less a Senate trial.

By contrast, the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte are scheduled to be filed on February 6, 2026, when the one-year ban from previous impeachment proceedings expires. 

These complaints emerge from a markedly different political environment, at a time of growing friction between the Duterte camp and segments of the political establishment. The anticipated complaints against the Vice President are expected to be closely tied to allegations involving confidential fund use, governance issues, and questions of accountability in her role as a high-ranking executive official.

Unlike the Marcos complaints, the case against Duterte is widely perceived as being fueled by shifting alliances within Congress and fractures in what had once been a unified political coalition. 

Public reception also differs between the two cases. The Marcos impeachment complaints are often framed by supporters as politically-motivated attempts to weaken a sitting president with strong legislative backing. In contrast, the anticipated impeachment of Vice President Duterte is more widely debated as a test of transparency and fiscal accountability, particularly given heightened public sensitivity to the use of discretionary and confidential funds.

Political viability over legal merit

A key distinction lies in legislative momentum. While the impeachment complaints against President Marcos Jr. are largely viewed as symbolic and unlikely to overcome numerical barriers in the House, the impeachment against Vice President Duterte is expected to gain traction because it aligns with evolving power dynamics among lawmakers. 

This difference underscores a recurring reality of Philippine impeachment proceedings: legal arguments alone rarely determine outcomes, as political viability often proves decisive.

President Marcos commands overwhelming support in the House of Representatives, where impeachment begins and where numbers matter most. For an impeachment to move forward, at least one-third of all House members must support the articles of impeachment. At present, the President’s allies dominate the chamber, making it highly unlikely that enough lawmakers would vote against him. 

The complaints filed by De Jesus and the Makabayan bloc are widely viewed as symbolic or pressure-driven, serving to air grievances and force public scrutiny rather than realistically remove the President from office.

By contrast, impeachment efforts against Vice President Sara Duterte are considered more politically plausible, though still far from guaranteed. 

The Vice President does not enjoy the same consolidated control over the House as the President typically does. 

The impeachment complaints scheduled for February 6 emerge amid fractures in political alliances, particularly following tensions between the Marcos and Duterte camps. These fractures create openings where impeachment can gain traction, not necessarily because the case is legally stronger, but because political support is more fluid.

A troubling scenario

While I support both impeachment complaints on their merits, I am troubled by the timing and potential consequences of pursuing them simultaneously. 

Having two impeachment proceedings running in parallel risks muddling the issues and confusing the public. More worryingly, it creates conditions that could allow the Marcos and Duterte camps to strike a deal behind closed doors, with both cases potentially dismissed in exchange for political accommodation. 

Such an outcome would serve neither justice nor accountability, but only the private interests of two powerful political dynasties at the expense of the public good.

The comparison between the two impeachment efforts highlights the dual nature of impeachment in the Philippines. 

Constitutionally, it is a legal process grounded in defined offenses and procedures. Politically, it is an exercise shaped by alliances, rivalries, and shifting balances of power within Congress. 

The Marcos and Duterte cases demonstrate that while impeachment remains an essential accountability mechanism, its success or failure often reflects political realities more than legal thresholds.

Philippine impeachment cases tend to rise or fall not on legal arguments alone, but on who controls Congress at the moment the complaint is filed. 

On that measure, the Marcos impeachment is politically dead on arrival, while a Duterte impeachment, under the right conditions, has a clearer, though still narrow, path forward. 

Together, these cases reinforce a central lesson of Philippine governance: impeachment is as much a political process as it is a constitutional safeguard, and its outcomes depend less on the gravity of accusations than on the alignment of power behind them. – Rappler.com