Duty Over Personal Grievances: Degamo Explains Why Impeachment Scrutiny Continues
In a heartfelt, deeply personal testimony before the House Committee on Justice, Negros Oriental’s 3rd District Representative Janice Degamo spoke about why she supports the ongoing impeachment deliberations against Vice President Sara Duterte. Drawing on her own painful experience with political violence, Degamo reminded the committee that her husband, the late Governor Roel Degamo, was assassinated in 2023 after years of threats.
"She knows the depth of that pain. She understands how seriously I take threats directed at or from public officials. This is not about anger, politics, or personal grudges. It is about duty," Degamo said, noting that the Vice President attended her husband’s funeral.
Degamo stressed that her stance is not driven by anger or personal hostility, but by a constitutional obligation to investigate serious allegations. She pointed out that given the nation’s history of political killings, claims involving threats—especially those referenced in the fourth complaint about an alleged plot against the President—cannot be dismissed.
"The complaint alleges grave acts. At this point, we are not determining guilt. We are assessing whether the allegations, if proven true, meet the threshold of impeachable offenses," she explained.
She argued that the impeachment process is the appropriate venue for the Vice President to respond—clearly and directly—and to clear her name. Degamo emphasized that the seriousness of the complaints justifies thorough House scrutiny.
"My position comes from sorrow, responsibility, and respect for our institutions—nothing more, nothing less," she added.
Earlier, the House Committee on Justice ruled that two of the four initial complaints were sufficient in form, allowing the proceedings to advance to the next phase: evaluating sufficiency in substance.
And this is where it gets interesting: the debate isn’t just about procedure. It touches on how the country handles serious allegations against top officials, the boundaries between political rivalry and constitutional duty, and the question of how history—marked by violence and instability—shapes today’s accountability mechanisms. Some may push back on what constitutes impeachable conduct or argue about the political motivations behind certain charges. What do you think about using impeachment as the proper channel for addressing allegations against a vice president? Do you believe the process adequately balances accountability with fairness, or is it subject to manipulation for partisan ends?
