Impeachment distorted by trolls

The usual line we hear is that impeachment is a political process. That is true. It becomes false only when the malicious stop there without proceeding to its succeeding qualifying phrase: that it is also a quasi-judicial process.

Imee Marcos trolls that impeachment is only a political process. Look at her heavily partisan-laden statement in the Senate last August 6 that only a mother can love:

“Kaysa inaatupag ninyong palitan ang pinili ng taumbayan, binoto, at minahal, bakit ‘di ‘nyo na lang palitan ang taong kayo naman lang ang pumili…Ano kaya kung ‘yung Speaker ‘nyo na lang ang palitan ‘nyo?” (Instead of trying to change the one the people chose, voted for, and loved, why don’t you just change the person you chose yourself…What if you just change your Speaker?) 

See how her train of thought goes straight to its fallacious point, not to mention that it uses the false dichotomy of Sara vs. Martin.

But for the 66% surveyed who favor a Sara Duterte impeachment trial, none of the 1,200 respondents indicated they think so because they agree with Speaker Martin Romualdez. Imee’s opinion is thus a very remote outlier, but one that will be replicated by the algorithms of the Duterte troll machines as germane to their disinformation agenda.

In fact, 66% — that is 6 in every 10 Filipinos — is a highly significant rise. In January, only 41% — 4 in every 10 Filipinos — said they agree with the impeachment. Conversely, the numbers become even more convincing when we look at the numbers of those who disagree. In the January poll, 35% disagreed. In the June survey, only 19% disagreed.

What that means is that today a big majority of Filipinos believe in the judicial efficacy of an impeachment trial in achieving accountability. What changed the numbers is not anybody’s guess — by February 2025 the articles of impeachment were out and they exactly corresponded with the same issues Sara evaded in the House hearings on her budget that the public saw and heard on live television and radio.

This points to a highly substantial possibility: citizenry form their opinions not just from trollist thought. In which case, it is possible to surpass the onslaught of Dutertist trollism. In fact, from the social classes A to E of the survey respondents, D and E both recorded very consistent high numbers, 66% for D and 62% for E. The Filipino masa know what impunity is and that Sara is the poster girl for it.

Who else trolls the impeachment? Well, the Senate president.

“Our country’s leaders cannot afford to be consumed by politics when so many of our kababayan struggle simply to make ends meet.”

Just wow. The Escudero statement is a case of essentialism — that ALL impeachments are consummately political. This latest Escudero word salad is simply evasive of the real intent of impeachment. Yet it will be gobbled up hook, line and sinker by Duterte troll machines.

Chel Diokno immediately rebutted. “So many of our kababayan struggle to make ends meet because corrupt leaders escape accountability.”

The fundamental Escudero lie, and one that will haunt his career for years to come, is how he completely dismisses the Constitution. First, he makes it sound so very palatable to Duterte trolls that all detractors of the 19 senators are anti-Sara Duterte. 

Someone should give Escudero a kalabasa award for ignoring the real logic. San Beda Law’s Fr. Ranhilio Aquino calls the Senate president’s train of thought as ignoratio elenchi, a fallacy that signifies an irrelevant conclusion to deliberately miss the point.

How must we counter, nay repudiate, trollist thoughts about impeachment? The answer is found in the very document that Escudero omits:  the 1987 Constitution.

This is the tricky part. If our senators obfuscate the issue by avoiding any constitutional talk, the reference we must insist is always the Constitution. We do not need to be lawyers to do that. We can read the Constitution as lay people. 

But first, back to Imee Marcos who is another ample user of ignoratio elenchi after her most infamous one: “Yes, Archimedes Trajano was tortured and killed but it’s none of your business.”

“Galangin na man natin ang Korte Suprema. Huwag tayong umastang ‘supremer court.’ ‘Supremest’ pa! Wala namang ganun ah.” (Let’s respect the Supreme Court. Let’s not pretend to be the ”supremer court.” There is also ”Supremest!” We don’t have anything like that.)

In fact, there is. The only thing that stands high and mighty above the Supreme Court is the Constitution. Nothing else. No one else.

Impeachment in the 1987 Constitution is found under Article XI. See how this article is entitled because it is not by accident: Accountability of Public Officials. The first phrase of the article then follows: Public office is a public trust.

What is the message? That public office is a public trust presents several vital meanings. First, public trust in government is crucial for effective governance. It is a principle that is foundational to ethical conduct in public service.

The universal rights champion Thomas Jefferson had a unique way of enunciating public trust in everyday layman’s language. “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.”

When the framers of the 1987 Constitution placed that principle under accountability of public officials, it is to show that the principle underpins many legal principles on ethical governance in public service. It is one of the most extraordinarily sublime phrases in our Constitution. As the opening line of the article on accountability, it already sets the tone for what impeachment is all about: accountability. Accountability is thus a constitutional command.

Take as example how our past Senates were commanded by the Constitution on proceeding forthwith on impeachment trials. The House of Representatives impeached President Joseph Estrada on November 13, 2000. The Senate convened as an impeachment court — take note — on December 7, 2000. That is 24 days after the impeachment in the House — when on the same day the articles of impeachment were transmitted to the Senate.

The other example of constitutional command was the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona. The House impeached him on December 12, 2011. It was almost Christmas time when the Senate goes on a holiday break. The Senate then convened as an impeachment court on January 16, 2012. That is one month and four days after the articles of impeachment were transmitted to the Senate.

These were constitutional commands. The senators obeyed because they were not “supremer/supremest” to the Constitution. There were no ignoratio elenchi and no word salads on the meaning of “forthwith.” It was simply, public officials subservient to the Constitution, as it should be.

Today, senators who consider themselves supreme/supremest to the Constitution have betrayed the time-honored principle. And look with whom they have connived — 13 justices of the Supreme Court who have redefined impeachment as merely a political exercise. Together they troll.

We do not follow these 32 trolls. We follow the Constitution. We are on the right track. The battle cry is accountability. – Rappler.com

Antonio J. Montalván II is a social anthropologist who advocates that keeping quiet when things go wrong is the mentality of a slave, not a good citizen.