โVP Sara is asking for due process. The Supreme Court ordered a hearing for due process. Now, there is a hearing, and they are again questioning the hearing.โ This pointed remark by House justice committee chair Gerville Luistro captures a paradox that is becoming all too familiar in Philippine politics: when the demand for due process risks becoming a strategy of perpetual delay.
At the center of this political storm is Vice President Sara Duterte, whose camp has repeatedly invoked due process as both shield and rallying cry. In a democracy, that invocation should be taken seriously. Due process is not a technicalityโit is the backbone of justice, ensuring that power is exercised within the bounds of law, not whim.
Due process must have an endpoint
But due process, by its very nature, must have an endpoint.
The intervention of the Supreme Court of the Philippinesโordering a hearing precisely to ensure fairnessโshould have been a stabilizing moment. Instead, it has opened a new front of contestation. If a hearing mandated to uphold due process is itself cast as a violation, then we are no longer debating procedureโwe are questioning the very possibility of resolution.
This is where the danger lies.
In legal and political discourse, due process can be weaponized. It can be stretched, reinterpreted, and deployed not just to guarantee fairness, but to stall accountability. The line between legitimate defense and strategic obstruction becomes thin, and often invisible to the public.
Luistroโs statement is not merely a rebuttal; it is a warning. If every institutional responseโevery hearing, every order, every complianceโis met with another layer of procedural doubt, the system risks paralysis. Justice delayed is justice denied, not only for the accused, but for the public seeking clarity and closure.
Yet, this is not a simple morality play.
Tightrope to walk
The Philippines has a long history of contested institutions, where distrust in process is not unfounded. For many, skepticism toward hearingsโespecially those conducted in highly politicized environments like Congressโis rooted in experience. The fear is that โdue processโ becomes selective, applied unevenly depending on who holds power.
This is the tightrope Philippine democracy must walk.
On one hand, the Vice President is entitled to every protection the law affords. On the other, public officialsโespecially those at the highest levelsโare accountable to institutions designed to check power. When these two principles collide, the test is not who speaks louder, but whether institutions can hold their ground.
The Supreme Courtโs role is crucial here. It must not only ensure that due process is followed. But also that it is not endlessly redefined to evade scrutiny. The credibility of the Courtโand by extension, the rule of lawโdepends on its ability to draw that line clearly.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Vice President Duterte deserves due process. She does. The real question is whether due process will be allowed to function as intendedโor be stretched into a moving target that no institution can ever satisfy.
About The Author
