On December 2, I, along with 16 other private citizens, filed an impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte at the House of Representatives. Our complaint was endorsed by Akbayan Representative Perci Cendaña. We were also accompanied by democracy icon and former senator Leila de Lima, who serves as our spokesperson.

It was the first impeachment complaint ever filed against a Philippine vice president. For me, this was the first time I ever exercised a constitutionally guaranteed right as a citizen to engage in a formal process to demand accountability from a high official.

For most of my  adult  life, I have tried to hold government officials accountable by convincing people to vote wisely, writing critical Rappler columns, engaging in social media, and ranting in my classes when relevant to the topic. I have also engaged in endless pickets, rallies , demonstrations. In other words I have been a nag, a pest, and a social critic. For most of my adult life, this  seemed worthwhile.

Alas, it is no longer enough. Most politicians have become so thick-skinned that their cutaneous layer probably takes up most of their body weight. Hiya, delicadeza, decorum, and good manners are no longer in the dictionary, according to Philippine public officials. And as my etiquette book tells me, when good manners fail to regulate our relationships, we must resort to the law.

National sport

Naturally, the national sport of trolling kicked in immediately.

I have heard the silliest of accusations leveled against me and the other petitioners. My favorite one is from the second-ranked dynastic spawn Representative Paolo Duterte, who’s claiming that, being part of Leila de Lima’s gang, I was corrupt, a drug addict, and a terrorist.

Upon joining the government, my father told me years ago, “You may yet discover your price.” I never did. I am still waiting to be offered an amount that would make me do something like…er…steal confidential funds, my pork barrel, etc. 

As for terrorist,  it is true that I was once a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines. But I left when the Marcos dictatorship fell in 1986. When I was a communist, I mostly did health work and never committed a terrorist act. I never had anything to do with terroristic activities like having a gun arsenal in Davao or killing my political enemies.

And, lastly, I will admit to having an addiction to silly computer games. These do not show up in drug tests, something I would challenge Representative Duterte to undertake on any given day.

Come to think of it, as our spokesperson, former senator De Lima serves the petitioners. I guess she serves our gang of petitioners rather than the other way around.

My friends say that Representative Duterte’s statement is not as silly as I think and that it is meant for his followers who seem to be enlivened by such vacuousness. Very well, I challenge him to an “insult each other” contest for the entertainment of the people. Even if he resorts to Cebuano, in which I have no capacity, I probably have far more words in my vocabulary in the two languages I know than he and his family have in their entire lexicon — past, present, and future. And it isn’t just vocabulary, right? It is the capacity to string them together. For someone whose IQ is, from all I have seen, lower than a hole in the ground, it is unlikely that he can string together more than five words without resorting to the help of an aide.

Lackeys?

But let me go on to something far beyond the ken of trolls, be they elected officials named Duterte or hired unfortunates. I shall now discuss serious issues that go beyond trading insults. I would challenge Representative Duterte and his ilk to join me here too, but I don’t want to engage in futility.

First, most critics immediately ascribe to the petitioners an astounding lack of agency. It is claimed that we are the lackeys of De Lima, the “dilawans,” the pinks, Speaker Martin Romualdez, the Marcoses, and Satan. I can’t assure anyone about not being the lackey of Satan, because a lackey of the devil would disavow it, so anything I say would be suspect. I argue, though,  that four of our group belong to the religious sector, and they haven’t recommended me for exorcism yet. 

As for the rest, let me just say that I and many of the other petitioners have also rallied consistently against constitutional change — something that many believe is being pushed by Speaker Romualdez for his own political gain. 

That leaves the dilawan and pinks. I guess I am a pink because my former comrades in the Communist Party of the Philippines claim I am now a fake or diluted red. As for yellow, would a coward challenge the Dutertes? No, seriously. What do these colors mean? Am I pink because I voted for Leni Robredo? Am I yellow because I have always opposed the Marcoses?

If you’re going to accuse me of turning over my brain to some group and allowing them to manipulate me, please be specific as to who these people are. At least accusing me of being the lackey of Satan has specificity. I am used to this kind of argument because I have been exposed to the occasional daft student that mistakenly got admitted to my school. I am very patient with dumb creatures. But my heart bleeds for Mr. Randy delos Santos, uncle of EJK victim Kian delos Santos, and all the other victims he represents. What motive could they possibly have? Duh. Even master gaslighter Rodrigo Duterte could not come up with a quip about them when he was confronted by the stories of the victims in both houses of Congress.

See how silly these speculations are? Perhaps I made a mistake in saying that this issue is a serious matter beyond the mental level of a Duterte. Except that I don’t think they understand the concept of agency.

Conscience

My second and more important issue is that of morals and conscience. And here we say goodbye to many denizens of our legislature and executive.

Last December 2, as we gathered to finalize our complaint prior to proceeding to the House of Representatives, we discussed how we would lose control of the process the minute we filed. In today’s polarized world, this would be inevitable. Yet this is not a reason for us, the genuine opposition who find both camps to have their faults, not to proceed. We, all of us — whether we agree with one side or the other, whether we are disgusted with this unseemly national display of factional in-fighitng over government spoils — cannot be kept from engaging.

We went around one last time and asked each of us, “Do we proceed? Do you want to sign this? Why?” Our answers varied, but the underlying thread was that we had all examined our conscience and values and had decided that Vice President Duterte had indeed committed violations that were impeachable. For me, the strongest arguments are her refusal to account for the tens of  millions in confidential funds spent by the Office of the Vice President and during her term as secretary of education, as well as her involvement in extra-judicial killings.

And so, with eyes wide open, we filed our complaint.

Since the filing, I have heard even other criticisms. Why only the Vice President? Others steal too. And my response has always been, if anyone else invites me to file cases against other corrupt people, why not? But to say I cannot condemn a wrongful act because others are getting away with it is one of the most morally bankrupt arguments I have come across. It leads to paralysis, something the wrongdoers love.

Finally, there is the idea that we just want attention. There have been other times in my life when my stances have led to two minutes of fame in smaller and bigger ponds. For myself, I have found the attention a form of punishment. If there is any way I could avoid it, I would. But let me point out that this is not an argument against the rightness of our accusation. Is it possible that someone who seeks attention could also make a moral decision?

Less division, more respect

That is for each and everyone of us to decide. My only real appeal is for everyone to stop trolling, please? Can we all just please read the impeachment complaint with an open but critical mind? If you agree with it or any part of it, then I welcome you to support it. If you disagree with it or any part of it, then I welcome you to oppose it.

But if you are going to discuss it, discuss it on its merits. Speculations about our motives, our political leanings, and personal insults are not really pertinent. And I would urge everyone to begin the road to better politics by finding out that with which you disagree and that with which you agree. Then you can respectfully support our complaint or respectfully oppose it.

What do I have to say about my impeachment complaint? It is a matter of national importance and it needs to be considered with sobriety. Can you give the complaint some respect by actually knowing what it is saying? By deciding for yourself what you think about it? And then sending out a well-founded opinion?

I suggest that this is what “respect for opinions” really means. Opinions are not insults nor speculation. They are genuine opinions if we took the time to look at the evidence and formed our judgements with deep thought. This is something small minds cannot do. Respectful discussions, respectful politics. I guess the trolls will hate me most for advocating for real respect for each other. – Rappler.com

Sylvia Estrada Claudio is a doctor of medicine who also has a PhD in psychology. She is professor emerita of the University of the Philippines, Diliman.