In a heart-wrenching and deeply personal testimony before the House Committee on Justice, Negros Oriental 3rd District Representative Janice Degamo shed light on her stance regarding the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. But here's where it gets controversial—her perspective is rooted not in anger or political rivalry, but in a profound sense of duty shaped by her own tragic encounter with political violence. And this is the part most people miss: Degamo’s husband, the late Governor Roel Degamo, was assassinated in 2023 after years of threats, a reality that has forever altered her understanding of the stakes involved in such allegations.
During her emotional address, Rep. Degamo emphasized that her position is not fueled by personal animosity but by a constitutional obligation to investigate serious claims. She recalled Vice President Duterte’s presence at her husband’s funeral, noting, ‘She knows the depth of that pain. She understands why I take threats against public officials with the utmost seriousness.’ This, she argued, is about duty—not politics or vengeance.
Here’s the bold part: Given the Philippines’ dark history of political killings, Degamo insists that allegations of threats—especially those in the fourth complaint, which hints at a plot against the President—cannot be swept under the rug. ‘The complaint alleges grave acts,’ she explained. ‘At this stage, we’re not determining guilt; we’re assessing whether these claims, if true, constitute impeachable offenses.’ This distinction is crucial, yet often misunderstood by the public.
Degamo further argued that the impeachment process is the appropriate platform for the Vice President to address the accusations ‘clearly and directly,’ allowing her to defend her reputation. She stressed that the severity of the complaints demands rigorous scrutiny by the House, a point that has sparked debate among observers. ‘My stance comes from sorrow, responsibility, and respect for our institutions—nothing more, nothing less,’ she added.
The House Committee on Justice has already deemed two of the four initial complaints sufficient in form, paving the way for the next phase: determining their substance. But the question remains: Is this a legitimate exercise of duty, or a politically motivated move? Degamo’s testimony invites us to reflect on the fine line between accountability and partisanship. What do you think? Is this impeachment process a necessary step toward justice, or a dangerous precedent? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments!
