THE RECENT discussions surrounding the possible impeachment of the Vice President of the Philippines have once again placed the nation in a familiar position. Filipinos are divided, emotions are high, and public discourse is unfolding faster than careful reflection. Supporters defend. Critics accuse. Social media amplifies every claim and counterclaim. In moments like this, the challenge is not choosing sides, but choosing clarity.
Impeachment is one of the most serious mechanisms in a democratic system. It is not meant to be ordinary, nor should it be treated casually. Whether one supports or opposes the Vice President, the conversation must rise above loyalty and anger. It must return to principle.
This moment is bigger than any single official. It is a test of our institutions, our political maturity, and our ability to engage in democratic processes responsibly.
Impeachment is not a declaration of guilt. It is a constitutional process designed to investigate allegations of serious wrongdoing by high-ranking officials. It exists to protect the public interest, not to satisfy political rivalries.
At the same time, impeachment should not be used as a political weapon. When it is driven primarily by power struggles or partisan advantage, it weakens public trust and turns accountability into spectacle.
This is why neutrality matters. A democracy must be able to examine its leaders without demonizing them and without shielding them from scrutiny. The process must be guided by evidence, due process, and respect for institutions.
Holding the position of Vice President carries enormous responsibility. The office is symbolic as much as it is functional. It represents national leadership, continuity, and public trust. Allegations against such an office inevitably affect the credibility of the government as a whole.
For supporters of Vice President Inday Sara Duterte, the impeachment discussions feel like an attack on a leader they believe in and trust. For critics, it represents an opportunity to demand accountability. Both reactions are understandable. What is dangerous is when emotion replaces reason.
Public office does not grant immunity from scrutiny. But neither should scrutiny abandon fairness.
The role of communication in political crisis
How leaders, institutions, and citizens communicate during moments like this matters deeply. Poor communication fuels misinformation. Silence creates speculation. Aggressive rhetoric hardens division.
Development communication reminds us that trust in institutions is built not only through decisions, but through transparent, responsible communication. Citizens deserve clear explanations of allegations, processes, and legal standards. They deserve to know what is being examined and why.
When information is fragmented or sensationalized, people retreat into camps. Dialogue disappears. Democracy becomes performative rather than participatory.
One of the most challenging aspects of modern political crises is the speed at which narratives form online. Complex constitutional processes are reduced to hashtags. Legal language is replaced with slogans. Personal attacks overshadow substantive discussion.
Social media thrives on certainty, not nuance. But impeachment demands nuance.
The danger is that public opinion solidifies before facts are examined. Guilt or innocence is decided emotionally rather than legally. This erodes confidence not only in leaders but in democratic mechanisms themselves.
Why neutrality is not indifference
Being neutral does not mean being silent. It does not mean avoiding difficult questions. It means insisting on fairness, evidence, and due process regardless of who is involved.
A neutral position recognizes that accountability and stability are not opposing goals. They must coexist. A country cannot progress if leaders are immune to scrutiny. But it also cannot thrive if institutions are weaponized for political gain.
Neutrality asks us to slow down. To examine claims carefully. To allow processes to unfold without pressure from mob sentiment or political convenience.
If impeachment is mishandled, the consequences extend far beyond the current administration. It sets precedents. It shapes future governance. It teaches citizens what accountability looks like.
If impeachment becomes synonymous with political revenge, future leaders will govern defensively. If it becomes impossible to question power, corruption flourishes. The balance is delicate, and once broken, difficult to restore.
This is why lawmakers, institutions, and citizens must treat this process with seriousness and restraint.
Ordinary Filipinos may feel powerless in moments like this, but public engagement matters. Citizens can demand transparency without spreading misinformation. They can ask critical questions without dehumanizing leaders. They can resist the urge to reduce complex issues into moral absolutes.
Democracy depends not only on institutions, but on civic behavior.
Listening, verifying information, and allowing space for lawful processes are acts of democratic responsibility.
Our political spaces must speak reason rather than rage. They must encourage understanding rather than division. They must remind us that disagreement does not require hostility.
The impeachment issue confronting the Vice President is not merely about one individual. It is about how the Philippines handles power, accountability, and dissent. It is about whether we trust our constitutional mechanisms enough to let them work without turning them into weapons.
History will not only remember the outcome of this process. It will remember how we spoke to one another while it unfolded.
In times of political tension, neutrality is not weakness. It is discipline. It is faith in institutions. It is respect for democracy, and perhaps, in moments like this, that discipline is exactly what the country needs.
Kethelle I. Sajonia is a college instructor at the University of Southeastern Philippines, Mintal Campus. She is currently in the final phase of her Doctor of Communication degree at the University of the Philippines. Her research interests include inclusivity, education, communication, and social development. She actively engages in scholarly research and community-based initiatives that advocate for inclusive and transformative communication practices.
