The List is a Weapon

 

                                                    (photo: philstar.com)

Nahipakita man an listahan..

Dominique Nicole Flores of the Philippine Star reported on February 5, 2025: The House of Representatives impeached Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday, February 5, after at least one-third of its members endorsed the move. A total of 215 lawmakers backed the fourth impeachment complaint.

And the list of signatories was posted.

The event sparked a frenzy among netizens. Supporters of the impeachment celebrated triumphantly, while opponents vehemently declared that they would never forget what they saw as a betrayal by the representatives against the vice president.

Some hinted at their intention to retaliate in the May elections, vowing to cast their votes against those who supported the impeachment.

According to Marcus et al. (2019), emotions such as anger and betrayal drive political engagement, often motivating individuals to participate in elections as a form of protest or retribution. Similarly, a study by Dalton (2020) emphasizes that voters are more likely to penalize elected officials they perceive as disloyal to their political principles, leading to shifts in voter preferences.

Then, there were posts from those who supported the impeachment of the Vice President, which appeared to serve as justifications for their stance. Were these statements a response to the intense social media uproar? Did some begin to regret their decision in the face of public backlash? Or was this merely another tactic of self-preservation, a strategic attempt to control the narrative and deflect criticism?

Benoit (2018) posited that political actors employ image restoration strategies, such as denial, justification, and bolstering, to mitigate damage to their reputation in the face of criticism.

People tend to recognize politicians’ bravery and integrity when they remain steadfast in their decisions despite public scrutiny. If leaders voted *yes* on impeachment, they must demonstrate resilience and confidence in their judgment, making decisions based on wisdom and intelligence rather than succumbing to online criticism. In doing so, the public may perceive their choice as a reflection of genuine conviction, reinforcing their credibility and strengthening belief in their character.

Moreover, if they believed that their involvement in the impeachment process could tarnish the image they so carefully protect, they could have chosen to abstain altogether. However, if their participation was driven by a fear of losing favor with the current administration, they should have been prepared to face the inevitable consequences of their decision.

Political actors often navigate decision-making based on a careful balance between personal conviction and political survival. According to Mayhew (2019), legislators strategically align their actions with party expectations and public perception to maintain political capital. Similarly, Hirschman (2020) argues that fear of political retribution often compels officials to conform rather than abstain, even when a decision risks damaging their reputation.

These insights may imply that those who participated in the impeachment process could have done so not purely out of principle but out of concern for their political standing.

And since politics is a war, they must fortify themselves against the possibility of defeat. You see, the enemy on the other side is wielding *The List* as their weapon - one that could expose their opponents’ Achilles’ heel.