In hindsight, Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua says Vice President Sara Duterte's early announcement of her 2028 presidential bid was calculated move to create "chilling effect" among the lawmakers involved in the impeachment proceedings against her.

“Pagdeklara lang niya na siya ay tatakbo sa pagkapangulo, may laman yun. Dahil wala naman magdedeklara ng ganito kaaga. Dahil alam mo pag ikaw nagdeklara ng ganito kaaga, under attack ka kaagad politically,” Chua, a member of the House Committee on Justice, said over over the weekend.

(She had just declared that she would run for president, and that carried weight. Because no one usually declares this early. When you declare this early, you’re immediately under political attack.

“Pero the fact na bago magsimula o nagsisimula na yung impeachment, sinabayan niya ng pagdedeklara, ‘yung gusto niyang magkaroon ng chilling effect yun,” Chua, chairman of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, explained.

(But the fact that he announced right before or as the impeachment was beginning, he wanted it to have a chilling effect.)

It was last Feb. 18 when Duterte announced her plans to run for president in the 2028 national elections. Five days later, the House of Representatives initiated this year's impeachment proceedings against her.

Out of the initial four verified and duly-endorsed impeachment complaints, two were declared sufficient in form, substance, and with probable cause by the justice committee chaired by Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville "Jinky Bitrics" Luistro.

The justice panel carried out its hearings on these impeachment raps under a belief that the clamor in House plenary to unseat Duterte--or at least put her to trial in the Senate--wasn't as strong as it was in 2025.

Being found guilty by the Senate impeachment court means Duterte would be disqualified from holding public office for life. However, the administration critic remains a very popular political figure.

“Yung threat o yung masasabi mong pressure ay laging nandyadyan yan. Pero kasi ang mga congressman, kami, ito yung ebidensyang nasa harapan. At least man lamang sana binigyan mo kami ng dahilan para masabi namin na wala talagang probable cause,” noted Chua.

(The threat or pressure is always there. But as congressmen, we deal with the evidence in front of us. At the very least, he should have given us a reason to say there was no probable cause.)

The lawmaker’s remarks reflect a broader tension between political positioning and evidentiary standards. The Vice President and her legal team never took part in the justice panel hearings.

“Ang problema hindi ninyo sinagot, wala kayong nilabas na ebidensya kahit na isa man lamang. So paano naman namin ipaliliwanag ito pagbaba namin sa aming constituents pagtinanong kami na bakit yun ang naging desisyon ninyo?” Chua asked.

(The problem is, you didn’t answer, you didn’t present even a single piece of evidence. So how are we supposed to explain this to our constituents when they ask why that was our decision?)

He underscored that House members--and even senators--cannot afford to ignore the material placed before them, particularly when public accountability is at stake.

“Mahirap magbulag-bulagan lalo pa sa parte ko, isa akong abogado. Siyempre ako nakabase lamang ako sa ebidensya na nasa harapan ko,” he reckoned.

(It’s hard to turn a blind eye, especially for me as a lawyer. Of course, I can only rely on the evidence before me.)