Opinion: The Cost-Benefit of Impeachment
Impeachment is never a simple accountability mechanism. It is a destabilizing political event.
Published on May 27, 2026
Impeachment has always been presented as a constitutional safeguard. In principle, it should protect the public from abusive or corrupt officials, specifically those in the highest positions. In practice, however, it is one of the most politically combustible processes in a presidential system. The Philippines knows this from experience.
The impeachment and eventual "resignation" of President Joseph Estrada left lingering questions about elite intervention in constitutional processes. Years later, the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona deepened distrust toward institutions, with critics arguing that legal mechanisms had been weaponized for political objectives.
Whatever one's political position on those cases, they demonstrated the same reality: impeachment is never a simple accountability mechanism. It is a destabilizing political event. Alarmingly, the descent to chaos is slowly unfolding in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial in the Senate.
Who Reaps the Spoils of Impeachment?
Keep in mind, however, that removal from office and perpetual disqualification from holding public office are the only penalties that can be imposed on an impeached official. That is significant but also limited. Impeachment does not imprison anyone. It does not recover stolen wealth. It does not compel restitution. Even after conviction, criminal prosecution must still proceed in ordinary courts to achieve those ends.
In other words, if the objective is genuine accountability—imprisonment, asset recovery, or punishment for corruption—proceedings before the Sandiganbayan or other courts remain necessary.
Pertinently, those processes can be pursued even without impeachment, except in the case of the president, who enjoys immunity from suit during his term. Thus, there was urgency to impeach President Estrada then, as his continued stay in office was clearly detrimental to the country.
This raises a difficult but necessary question: is the immense political cost of impeachment proportional to the legal outcome?
The cost is not abstract. Impeachment consumes political oxygen. The Senate effectively transforms into a trial court, and legislative priorities slow down or stop altogether. Hearings, committee work, negotiations, and policymaking become secondary to political theater.
That has real consequences for governance. Meetings with farmers get cancelled. Legislative priorities stall. Economic discussions are postponed. Even high-level coordination mechanisms such as the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council become casualties of intensified political intramurals.
Naturally, the national conversation narrows into a singular obsession. Media focuses on sensationalism to garner more clicks. Vloggers and influencers flood the information ecosystem with rage and vitriol. Political discourse disintegrates to total bedlam.
And worse, public attention shifts away from wages, jobs, food prices, transport, flood control, and other public service concerns. Government energy shifts inward toward political survival and coalition management. Political camps mobilize not for policy reform but for partisan warfare. Institutions become arenas of political contest rather than instruments of governance.
Crucially, the volatility also extends beyond Manila politics. The political pandemonium generates ramifications that can sink our international standing and reputation. Markets dislike instability. Investors abhor uncertainty even more. A politically explosive impeachment battle can create perceptions of institutional fragility, regardless of legal merit. That observation alone can affect investor confidence, business planning, and economic sentiment.
Even diplomatic or economic successes can be overshadowed. A fruitful ASEAN Leader's Summit, trade negotiations, or foreign investment announcements can disappear from public attention because the social discord brought about by impeachment dominates headlines and political discourse.
Yet despite the enormous national costs, there is one group that undeniably benefits from impeachment politics: political dynasties.
The political incentives are obvious. Removing a major rival before a presidential election fundamentally reshapes the electoral landscape. If Vice President Sara Duterte were removed and disqualified before 2028, President Bongbong Marcos's anointed successor immediately would become a stronger favorite.
Indeed, administration candidates would gain enormous strategic advantage. Incumbency powers can be used more effectively to consolidate alliances, strengthen political machinery, and potentially extend the dominance of allied political families. Dynastic politics win again!
Therefore, Filipinos must ask the deeper question: Does impeachment actually transform our politics and governance? History suggests it does not.
Removing one official will not change the culture of patronage, dynastic politics, weak institutions, or personality-driven governance. Corruption continues. Political clans adapt and get fatter. Coalitions realign based on who can access state largesse more efficiently. The system survives because the underlying incentives remain intact.
Real political change will depend less on impeachment and more on sustained civic pressure, institutional reform, media scrutiny, electoral participation, and civil society engagement. And this work can be carried out even without impeachment.
No Shortcuts
Civil society can still push for transparency laws, anti-dynasty reforms, campaign finance regulation, judicial strengthening, and institutional accountability even absent an impeachment trial. Reform-hungry Filipinos can still organize and pressure institutions to function properly.
Above all, the 70 million-strong electorate, or at least the undecided 40 percent, can still regain control of our politics and governance. It is not going to be easy. But two mental shifts must happen. First, Filipinos must accept that political engagement is more crucial between elections. Voters simply cannot hand the reins of government to elected officials.
They must ensure the trust bestowed is not abused by those in government.
Second, Filipinos must internalize this constitutional prescription in Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution:
"Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."
These are the standards by which every public official must be assessed. If they fail to meet these requirements, then they must never be elected again. More importantly, the trust conferred on every public official must be earned every minute in office. The phrase "at all times" cannot be any clearer.
The fact is that electing clowns will ensure public office becomes a circus. Just look at the Senate now. Electing plunderers guarantees the plunder of the public coffers. Case in point, the flood control scandal. "There are no despots where there are no slaves." These are words of Jose Rizal that must resonate with Filipino voters today.
In sum, impeachment may remove the most hated public official of the moment, but it does very little to change a broken political system. Filipinos must still do the hard yards of reform work. But ultimately, voters must stop electing clowns and plunderers. Real talk lang, as the kids today would say.
Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco is a constitutionalist, law lecturer, and a senior research fellow of the Ateneo Policy Center.