FOR THE FILIPINO people, an impeachment trial is not an unfamiliar process for seeking accountability against public officials. However, Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial has drawn the interest of Generation Z (Gen Z), highlighting how the case has become a point of political engagement among young voters.
The allegations of unconstitutional acts by Vice President Duterte in the Articles of Impeachment have compelled many Filipinos, particularly Gen Z, to voice their frustrations through online political discourse. More than testing the limits of the office, this trial is shaping the political consciousness of Gen Z, as seen in the growing curiosity and engagement with politics among the youth.
In the Bedan community, questions are asked and answers are being demanded, on how the outcome of the impeachment trial will shape democracy and the standard of accountability for other public officials.
The battle of legal jargon and public accessibility
Some assert that the trial is becoming too technical in its use of language. The extensive use of legal terminology and English conflicts with the trial’s aim of remaining accessible and understandable to the general public.
Academics like Prof. Marcelino C. Decena from the Department of Political Science warned that the rapid-fire legal jargon risks alienating the masses. However, because removing a public official requires “due process,” the proceedings cannot simply be “oversimplified.” Therefore, the media, civil society, and the academe must take action to explain the trial in terms ordinary Filipinos can understand.
Others share the same sentiment and highlight the need to uphold rigid legal standards throughout these proceedings. Uriel Andrada, a second-year Political Science student and auditor of the San Beda Debate Society (SBDS), argued that because impeachment is a political act conducted within a strict legal process, accuracy cannot be sacrificed. “If there is excessive use of some terms and explanations that could otherwise be expressed in a simpler manner, then it does go against its aim of being understandable to the public, making the proceedings difficult to follow,” he further quipped.
Impartiality on trial
Questions about the impartiality of the senator-judges continue to rise in conversations, given the political links surrounding Vice President Duterte. Thus, the impeachment trial remains deeply cathartic, evoking political tension in the public’s eyes as supporters and non-supporters of Vice President Duterte remain divided.
For many members of Gen Z, the proceedings test how democratic practices in our institutions can uphold fairness despite their political loyalties. Nathalie Alinio, Second-Year Batch Representative of The Repvblic (TR), pointed out that it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between the defense counsel and the Minority Bloc.
Nathalie expressed that their positions often coincide with minority senators. “Many from the minority, well, particularly [Sen.] Alan Peter Cayetano, often put out manifestations that raise arguments that are closely aligned with the defense’s concerns,” she emphasized.
As an example, she pointed to Senator Cayetano’s argument that the Senate should review the entire video of Vice President Duterte’s alleged threats to ensure the context of the two-hour video is fully understood.
Alinio claimed that these interventions did not weaken the proceedings. If anything, they prompted the prosecutors to provide more legal justifications, effectively countering the defense’s struggle to articulate its case. Nevertheless, she remains unconvinced, stating, “It’s not hard to put two and two together. Sabihin na nating parte ng due process, it’s just hard not to question whether or not they are there as political allies or impartial judges.”
Prof. Marcelino examined this subject through the lens of politics, noting that because senators are elected officials, a vote is never purely a legal judgment; rather, it is a deliberate political act with real consequences for their careers and alliances.
According to Prof. Marcelino, the true problem is not the existence of these political leanings, but rather “the absence of any real enforcement mechanism for the appearance of impartiality during the trial itself,” pointing out the lack of meaningful sanctions for senator-judges who openly prejudge the case in the media.
The paradox of due process or procedural stalling
Given the long hours and debates that are commencing in the trial, some members of Gen Z are becoming skeptical, questioning the time spent debating minor pieces of evidence; procedural delays risk dragging the trial to a technical dismissal.
This skepticism intensified on Day seven of the proceedings, when Senator-Judge Robinhood Padilla used a trial manifestation to defend himself against allegations that he helped Senator Bato Dela Rosa escape law enforcement. This personal manifestation prompted Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo to urge the court to strictly restrict such manifestations, stating that the court wasted 26 minutes on issues unrelated to Vice President Duterte’s charges.
This procedural frustration is exactly what concerns Mary Gonzales, a second-year Political Science student who draws a sharp line between necessary constitutional mechanics and political stalling.
“Long procedural debates naturally go by the concept of due process in general to ensure proper proceedings,” Gonzales quipped.
The final verdict
The impact of this impeachment trial goes beyond just ousting a very polarizing public official; it can change how the next generation of Filipinos perceives democratic practices in our country. Prof. Marcelino agrees that the impact will be immense, though its direction remains unpredictable due to deep political polarization.
With the Vice President maintaining a strong base as a 2028 presidential frontrunner even while on trial, he expects the verdict to entrench existing divides through “motivated reasoning” rather than forge a national consensus.
Citing history, Prof. Marcelino warns that the trial could either mirror the same outcome as the 2001 Estrada impeachment.
“The Estrada impeachment—and its dramatic collapse followed by EDSA II, galvanized a generation of young Filipinos into a period of heightened civic engagement, even if that engagement was later itself criticized as having set uneven precedents for extra-constitutional action,” he quipped.
He further argued that these political parallels could lead the youth to retreat into apathy, believing that institutional participation changes nothing.
As the trial continues to unfold, the real verdict in what has become a political “bloodbath” may not rest in the final legal judgment itself, but rather in the civic engagement emanating from the very students seated in classrooms, watching the proceedings through their phones. That work does not end with a Senate vote—it begins with whether this generation chooses to stay engaged after it.
(with Catherine Botalon)