The allegations are serious and specific: misuse and mishandling of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and statements that investigators say amounted to threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the First Lady, and the former House speaker. A House committee found probable cause after hearings; the Senate trial opened on July 6. Duterte denies wrongdoing and her lawyers contend that the process has departed from the constitutional design. Those defenses deserve a full and fair hearing. But fairness is not the same as immunity.

The heart of the matter is public money and public power. Confidential funds exist for legitimate security purposes, not as a convenient zone beyond scrutiny. When an official is accused of irregular disbursements and questionable liquidation, the public is entitled to clear documents, credible explanations, and verifiable recipients — not indignation, evasions, or a demand that everyone simply take her word for it.

The same standard applies to the alleged threats. A vice-president’s words do not become harmless merely because they are delivered in the language of anger or political warfare. Public officials set the temperature of national life. If threats against the president and other officials are proven, they are not colorful rhetoric; they are a betrayal of the restraint and responsibility the office requires.

Impeachment is not a criminal conviction. It should not pretend to be one. Its question is whether Duterte remains fit to hold a position built on public trust. That distinction matters. The Senate need not declare her guilty of every alleged crime to decide that the evidence shows conduct incompatible with the vice-presidency.

Nor should senators hide behind the claim that impeachment is inevitably political. Of course it is political: the Constitution assigns it to elected representatives. But it is not therefore optional, partisan theater, or an excuse for cowardice. The constitutional answer to political power is not to ignore evidence; it is to examine it in public, allow a defense, and render a judgment.

The Supreme Court’s nullification of the 2025 impeachment articles was procedural, not an exoneration. The Court itself made clear that its ruling concerned the constitutional one-year bar and the prior process. The present trial must now be judged on its own record, with due process for Duterte and with equal seriousness for the allegations against her. Supreme Court press briefer, Jan. 29, 2026

A democracy cannot demand accountability only from officials it already dislikes. It must insist on it precisely when a leader is powerful, popular, and surrounded by loyalists. Sara Duterte deserves a fair trial. The Filipino people deserve the truth. And if the evidence establishes betrayal of public trust, the Senate’s duty is clear: convict and remove her from office.