Second of a four-part series LAST week, we left the Deegong in The Hague, before an institution he could neither appoint nor intimidate. This week, we turn to Vice President Sara Duterte before the Senate, where her impeachment trial has taken a sharp turn. The International Criminal Court (ICC) judges crimes under international law. The Senate judges fitness for office. Its verdict combines constitutional duty, evidence, politics and senatorial arithmetic, depending, as always, on who has the numbers. Now the prosecution has narrowed down its case to one article. Three others have been withdrawn. The crescendo has acquired a procedural complication. 3 charges leave the stage On Oct. 13, the impeachment court approved the withdrawal of charges involving confidential funds, bribery and threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House speaker Martin Romualdez. Article 2 remains: alleged unexplained wealth, inaccurate asset declarations and prohibited business interests. Mary Grace Piattos and the other suspicious payees may now escape identification. The grocery has closed; taxpayers still hold the bill. Prosecutors say focusing on their strongest charge saves time. One proven article can secure conviction. But why parade accusations for weeks, then withdraw them before judgment? Was this prosecution or an audition for television? Withdrawal proves neither innocence nor guilt. The charges leave; the reputational damage stays. Senators must decide the remaining article on evidence. Repetition cannot turn allegations into proof. Otherwise, television reruns would count as corroborating witnesses. The mistrial question Sara’s lawyers argue that withdrawn accusations damaged her publicly while denying her a proper chance to answer them in court. They warn of a mistrial. That is an argument, not a ruling. Counsel cannot invalidate proceedings simply by saying the magic word. Still, fairness deserves more than an irritated wave from the prosecution. The court must clarify which evidence remains relevant and let both sides challenge it. Accusations cannot receive unlimited airtime while scrutiny gets canceled for lack of scheduling convenience. The defense, however, must identify an actual procedural defect. Disliking the prosecution is insufficient. Otherwise, Philippine courts could close before lunch. Prosecutors must formally offer their evidence by Oct. 23. The defense starts presenting its case on Nov. 9, following a preparation period of 26 days. A verdict is being discussed for late November or early December. Speed is welcome. Justice is not a catering service obliged to deliver before the Christmas party. Sara says she will not resign. Her lawyers now have the floor. Let them answer the evidence; let senators judge it with reasons, not applause. The P818-million question Drawing on banking, tax and corporate records, forensic analyst Alexander Cabrera’s calculation includes questioned balances, properties and business income — more than eight times Sara’s declared net worth of P98.66 million in 2025. The numbers are impressive. They remain allegations, not a verdict. Undeclared assets, unreported income and unexplained wealth are not interchangeable. Senators must establish what the figures represent, who owned the money, what required disclosure and whether any proven violation warrants removal. Money passing through an account does not automatically become personal wealth. Otherwise, every bank teller would qualify for the Forbes list. Transfers must not be counted twice. Company revenues are not automatically shareholders’ income. Legitimate earnings and liabilities must enter the calculation. These are questions of evidence, not excuses for Sara. Prosecutors must prove their case. The defense must be allowed to challenge calculations and present records explaining discrepancies. Neither a large total nor an indignant denial can settle questions that require documents, careful accounting and a fair hearing. But Sara owes the public more than cries of persecution. Where did the money come from? What belonged to her? What should her asset declarations have disclosed? When arithmetic becomes uncomfortable, attacking the calculator is rarely a complete answer. Confidential does not mean sacred The confidential-funds article has left this trial. The public question survives: How do we verify secret spending without compromising legitimate operations? Confidential funds are necessarily secret. That does not make them sacred. Secrecy must protect operations, not officials from accountability. Nor can confidentiality mean, “Trust me, the money disappeared patriotically.” Lawful audits and independent scrutiny remain essential. But senators cannot substitute outrage about confidential funds for proof of the surviving wealth charge. Accountability requires both honest spending and honest procedure. Acquittal remains possible The court’s September ruling reduced the present conviction threshold from 16 votes to 14 by counting only senators able to participate. That ruling itself shows how consequential procedural decisions have become. Senators must judge the evidence, not family alliances, survey ratings, Palace preferences or calculations about which presidential candidate may later remember their vote. Sara may survive because the prosecution fails to establish its case, because her explanations withstand scrutiny, or because the necessary votes never materialize. Procedural challenges may also affect the outcome. Those possibilities mean different things. Politically, expect them to be marketed under one convenient label: complete vindication. Equally, conviction must rest on a properly established ground for removal. Popular dislike of a surname is not evidence. Neither is popularity a certificate of innocence. The persecuted heiress Sara possesses advantages no spreadsheet can measure: a national electoral mandate, a powerful Mindanao base and the emotional loyalty attached to her detained father. Every misstep by her accusers strengthens her claim that impeachment is designed to eliminate a presidential rival. That argument carries weight because this prosecution did not descend from constitutional heaven. It emerged from the ruins of UniTeam: two dynasties that embraced, divided the spoils and then discovered that only one family could inherit Malacañang. Survival could make Sara stronger — the woman who endured the Marcoses, Congress and the combined talents of her enemies. Philippine politics adores a victim, particularly one with machinery and excellent survey ratings. But surviving impeachment would not answer the larger question: What does Sara offer beyond grievance, inheritance and revenge? Voters should demand a program: competent government, stronger institutions, economic opportunity and a foreign policy serving Philippine interests. A famous surname supplies instant recognition. It supplies neither a governing philosophy nor proof of competence. The country needs more than another family asking us to settle its quarrels at the ballot box. The system on trial This is why Sara’s impeachment belongs within our larger discussion of institutions. Our presidential system turns succession into dynastic warfare and accountability into a national convulsion. Removal requires House impeachment and a Senate supermajority. Every confrontation becomes an all-or-nothing melodrama involving rival families and their political survival. It is a zero-sum game. In a parliamentary system, a head of government who loses parliamentary confidence can be replaced without an impeachment trial. That political remedy does not replace investigation or punishment for wrongdoing. But parliamentarism alone will not save us. Without genuine political parties, anti-dynasty safeguards and transparent campaign finance, we will merely change the plumbing while keeping the sewage. Sara deserves a fair hearing. Filipinos deserve honest answers. Senators owe allegiance to the Constitution. A mistrial warning must be examined. It must not become an escape hatch merely because accountability has grown uncomfortable. Sara is impeached — but not yet defeated. And in the Philippines, surviving accountability is often mistaken for qualification to become president. To be continued on Oct. 28, 2026

The Senate President crowed yesterday that the party he nominally coheads, PDP-Laban, has a “pleasant problem” — too many potential senatorial candidates. Koko Pimentel’s estimate is they have up to 20 possible choices for the 12-person slate for the 2019 senatorial race. But his list includes the five administration-affiliated senatorial incumbents up for reelection next year. This is a group that has made noises that, much as it prefers to remain in the administration camp, it is unhappy with the way PDP-Laban has been designating its local leaders and candidates, and therefore prefers to strike out on its own, perhaps in alliance with the other administration (regional) party, Hugpong ng Pagbabago, headed by the President’s daughter and current Davao City mayor, Sara Duterte.

Setting aside, then, the five-person “Force,” the administration-oriented but not PDP-friendly reelectionists (Nancy Binay, Sonny Angara, Cynthia Villar, Grace Poe, and JV Ejercito), what Koko’s crowing over is a mixed bag. Some of them have been floated by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez (with whom Mayor Duterte clashed in recent months): six representatives (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who is in her last term in the House of Representatives; Albee Benitez, Karlo Nograles, Rey Umali, Geraldine Roman, and Zajid Mangudadatu), three Cabinet members (Bong Go, Harry Roque, and Francis Tolentino), and two other officials (Mocha Uson and Ronald dela Rosa), which still only adds up to 11 possible candidates (who are the missing three?).

Of all of these, the “Force” reelectionists are only fair-weather allies of the present dispensation; their setting themselves apart is about much more than the mess PDP-Laban made in, say, San Juan where support for the Zamoras makes it extremely unattractive for JV Ejercito to consider being in the same slate. Their cohesion is about thinking ahead: Creating the nucleus for the main coalition to beat in the 2022 presidential election. The contingent of congressmen and congresswomen who could become candidates for the Senate, however, seems more a means to kick the Speaker’s rivals upstairs (at least in the case of Benitez and Arroyo) and pad the candidates’ list with token but sacrificial candidates, a similar situation to the executive officials being mentioned as possible candidates (of the executive officials, only Go seems viable, but making him run would deprive the President of the man who actually runs the executive department, and would be a clear signal that the administration is shifting to a post-term protection attitude instead of the more ambitious system-change mode it’s been on, so far).

Vice President Leni Robredo has been more circumspect, saying she’s not sure the Liberal Party can even muster a full slate. The party chair, Kiko Pangilinan, denied that a list circulating online (incumbent Bam Aquino, former senators Mar Roxas, Jun Magsaysay, TG Guingona, current and former representatives Jose Christopher Belmonte, Kaka Bag-ao, Edcel Lagman, Raul Daza, Gary Alejano and Erin Tañada, former governor Eddie Panlilio and Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña) had any basis in fact.

What both lists have in common is they could be surveys-on-the-cheap, trial balloons to get the public pulse. Until the 17th Congress reconvenes briefly from May 14 to June 1 for the tail end of its second regular session (only to adjourn sine die until the third regular session begins on July 23), it has nothing much to do. Except, that is, for the barangay elections in May, after a last-ditch effort by the House to postpone them yet again to October failed.

Names can be floated but the real signal will come in July, when the President mounts the rostrum and calls for the big push for a new constitution—or not. Connected to this would be whether the Supreme Court disposes of its own chief, which would spare the Senate—and thus, free up the legislative calendar—to consider Charter change instead of an impeachment trial. In the meantime, what congressmen do seem abuzz over is an unrefusable invitation to the Palace tomorrow — to mark Arroyo’s birthday. An event possibly pregnant with meaning.

Here’s a striking statement about love shared with me by an English college mentor. “Love knows no grammar. How it works can’t be measured by any parts or figures of speech. It goes beyond the literate and illiterate. The sad reality is that, even a fool who has got no philosophy is not spared of its harsh reality.” After almost three decades, I reminded him through a private message of his words. Here’s what he said. “Thank you, Jord. This statement about love is searing to the heart. And, yes, fools do fall for it too. But I thought that we as well speak of the beauty that it gives and not so much focus on the harsh realities. After all, our country has had enough of the negativities.” Thank you, dearest Sir Eugene.

In these decisive times when our nation trembles under the weight of corruption, inequality, and disillusionment, it is you―the youth, burning with idealism, courage, and an unyielding sense of right―who must stand at the forefront of CHANGE. The future of the Philippines hangs in the balance, calling not for silence or apathy, but for unity, conviction, and action. Let your dreams be the spark that ignites renewal; let your voices thunder against injustice; let your hands build the nation our forebears envisioned but never fulfilled. Now is the hour to awaken, to rise, and to lead the march toward a just and transformed Philippines.

Remember, the pages of our history resound with the triumphs of youth who dared to dream and act. From the Propagandists who wielded the pen against tyranny to the Katipuneros who took up arms for freedom, it was always the young who ignited revolutions and rebuilt nations. As Dr. Jose Rizal declared, “The youth is the hope of our motherland,” but that hope is not a gift to be passively claimed; it is a duty to be earned through courage and purpose.

Today’s generation must transform awareness into action―to confront corruption with integrity, to challenge inequality with empathy, and to counter apathy with participation. The time for mere commentary has passed. What the nation demands now is commitment, creativity, and collective resolve. When the youth stand united in conscience and conviction, no obstacle is insurmountable, no reform impossible. The power to redeem the nation’s promise lies not in the hands of the few, but in the awakened spirit of the many. Rise, therefore, as one generation with one objective―to forge a Philippines worthy of its people’s deepest hopes. And to those who were once the torchbearers of youth but have since laid down their fire―hear this call.

The nation does not forget its veterans of hope, those who once believed that change was possible but have since grown weary in the long twilight of disappointment. Thus far history grants no sanctuary to resignation. It demands of every generation the same unrelenting duty―to defend what is right, to confront what is wrong, and to labor still for what remains unfinished.

Now is the moment to rise again. Let not caution disguise itself as wisdom, nor comfort as peace. The courage that once stirred your youth still flickers within; rekindle it, and let it burn anew for the sake of those who follow. Your experience, tempered by time, must now join hands with the fervor of the young - to guide, to mentor, to strengthen.

Together, let the wisdom of the seasoned and the passion of the rising coalesce into a single, indomitable force for renewal. For the task of nation-building is not bound by age, but by conviction. The call of the motherland resounds to all who still believe that the story of the Filipino is not yet complete―and that redemption, though delayed, is still within our grasp if only we choose to act once more. And to those whose hands have long gripped the levers of power―hardened by privilege, dulled by entitlement―hear this with clarity: the era of self-preservation must yield to the dawn of selfless service.

The nation can no longer afford leaders who mistake possession for stewardship, nor governance for dominion. The time has come to relinquish the throne of complacency and make way for the custodians of vision, courage, and renewal.

To step aside is not to surrender, but to honor the sacred rhythm of nationhood―to allow new voices, new hearts, and new minds to breathe life into institutions that have grown stale from neglect. True leadership is an act of stewardship, and stewardship demands humility―to know when to lead, and when to pass the torch. Those who have ruled long enough must now become mentors, not masters; guides, not gatekeepers.

To the youth who will inherit this burden and blessing alike, the call is equally profound. Lead not with arrogance, but with awareness; not with impulse, but with integrity. Let optimism be your discipline―a conscious act of faith in the nation’s capacity to rise again. Lead with inclusivity that unites rather than divides, with courage that reforms rather than destroys, and with resilience that endures when hope seems frail.

For the measure of a new generation’s greatness lies not in its defiance alone, but in its wisdom to build where others have failed. Let your leadership become the living testament that the Philippines, once disillusioned, has learned at last to believe again―through you.

Now, the Filipino youth stand at a defining crossroad of history. The echoes of the past and the murmurs of the future converge upon this moment, and in your hands rests the fragile, however formidable promise of a nation reborn. You are the inheritors of unfinished dreams and the architects of what is yet to be. United in thought and deed, strengthened by the wisdom of history and the fire of conviction, you possess the power to shape a Philippines anchored in justice, animated by democracy, and sustained by the collective flourishing of its people.

The mantle of responsibility has passed to you. Do not falter beneath its weight; bear it with courage, for it is through your resolve that the nation will rise from the ruins of complacency. Let your unity transcend boundaries of region, class, and creed. Let your integrity redefine leadership, and your compassion restore faith in the Filipino spirit.

This is your hour. Let this narrative be not merely a call to awaken, but a solemn commitment―to the country that nurtures you, to the people who believe in you, and to the generations who will follow your example. Stand firm, for you are the heartbeat of a nation yearning to live with dignity once more. Speak right and shine!

Rise, Filipino youth, and let history remember that when your time came ―you stood unwavering, and the nation moved forward.