Bold claim: Duty, not personal grievance, governs the case. This is how Rep. Janice Degamo frames her stance on the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.
In a heartfelt, personal testimony before the House Committee on Justice, Degamo—representing Negros Oriental’s 3rd District—explained why she supports advancing the impeachment deliberations despite the gravity of the allegations involved. She anchored her position in her own painful history with political violence, reminding lawmakers that her husband, the late Governor Roel Degamo, was assassinated in 2023 after years of threats.
“She understands that pain,” Degamo said, referring to the Vice President, and she emphasized how seriously she takes threats aimed at or coming from public officials. She clarified that her stance is not born of anger, politics, or personal grudges, but of duty—duty to uphold constitutional processes. Degamo noted that the Vice President attended her husband’s funeral, underscoring the personal relevance of the events and the seriousness with which she treats the matter.
She explained that her position is rooted in a commitment to constitutional accountability and the pursuit of truth, not retaliation. Given the country’s history of political violence, Degamo stressed that allegations—especially those in the fourth complaint alleging a plot against the President—deserve careful consideration and cannot be brushed aside.
“The complaint describes grave acts,” she said. “At this stage, we are not declaring guilt. We are determining whether the allegations, if proven true, would constitute impeachable offenses.”
Degamo argued that the impeachment process provides the proper forum for the Vice President to respond clearly and directly to the charges and to clear her name. She asserted that the seriousness of the complaints justifies thorough scrutiny by the House.
Her remarks, she added, stem from sorrow, a sense of responsibility, and a deep respect for institutions—not from personal motive.
Recently, the House Committee on Justice ruled that two of the four initial complaints are sufficient in form to advance to the next phase, which will assess sufficiency in substance.
