The ongoing impeachment proceedings provide Filipinos with something unusual: the opportunity to watch constitutional democracy unfold in real time.
We hear the prosecution and defense. We see witnesses questioned and cross-examined. We listen to senator-judges raise legal and factual questions. Outside the Senate, meanwhile, commentators, influencers and ordinary citizens offer their own instant verdicts.
The senator-judges will eventually make the judgment required of them. But we, the public, will inevitably form judgments of our own. How do we make sure those judgments arise from evidence and reason rather than personality, political loyalty or social-media persuasion? How should we listen?
First, listen to the argument, not merely to the person making it.
One of the oldest logical fallacies is the ad hominem argument. Instead of answering someone’s argument, we attack the person. “He is a partisan.” “She belongs to that political camp.”
These facts may sometimes be relevant to credibility or possible bias. But they do not establish whether an argument is true or false. An argument does not become correct because it comes from someone we admire. Neither does it become wrong because it comes from someone we dislike.
Ask instead: What exactly is being claimed? What evidence supports it?
Second, ask whether the conclusion actually follows from the evidence.
The non sequitur — Latin for “it does not follow” — is common in political debate.
A witness makes one mistake; therefore everything the witness says must be false. An official accomplished many good things; therefore the official could not have committed wrongdoing. An accusation has been repeated hundreds of times; therefore it must be true.
Whenever we hear a forceful argument, we should mentally insert a simple question: “Therefore?” Does the evidence really take us to the conclusion being asserted?
Third, beware of whataboutism.
Someone raises an allegation against A. The response is: “But what about B? He did something worse.” Perhaps B’s conduct deserves investigation. But that does not answer the allegation against A.
If wrongdoing occurred on both sides, the proper conclusion should not be that nobody should be held accountable. It should be that the same standards of accountability should apply to everyone.
Fourth, distinguish assertion from evidence.
A statement repeated loudly and frequently remains an assertion until supported by evidence. Documents matter. Testimony matters. Corroboration matters. Context matters.
Social media complicates this because a 10-second video clip can be more emotionally powerful than hours of testimony. We should therefore ask: Was this the complete statement? What happened immediately before and after it? Is the witness speaking from personal knowledge? Is there documentary support? Has contrary evidence been presented?
Perhaps the most revealing question we can ask ourselves is: What evidence would make me change my mind? If our answer is “nothing,” we are no longer searching for truth. We are defending a tribe.
Fifth, do not automatically dismiss technicalities.
We often hear: “Forget the technicalities. Let us get to the truth.”
Due process can look technical. Rules governing jurisdiction, admissibility, constitutional authority and the rights of the accused can appear frustrating. Yet many procedural safeguards exist precisely because history has taught us that government power must have limits.
At the same time, winning a procedural argument does not necessarily settle the underlying factual question. We should therefore distinguish two questions: Was the proper process followed? And what does the evidence show actually happened?
Sixth, escape our echo chambers.
Algorithms increasingly give us more of what we already like. If we repeatedly watch commentators supporting one position, the platform will happily supply us with more of the same.
A useful discipline is to deliberately seek the strongest argument of the other side — not the weakest or most ridiculous version that is easiest to attack. And listen occasionally to someone who makes you uncomfortable.
Seventh, apply the same standards to both sides.
This may be the hardest test of intellectual honesty.
Suppose the same argument were being made against the politician I support. Would I still find it convincing?
If I demand documentary proof from one side, do I demand it from the other? If I defend due process for someone I support, do I defend the same principle for someone I oppose? Truth cannot change according to political color.
Finally, we should recover three words that seem increasingly difficult to say: “I don’t know yet.”
There is nothing weak about withholding judgment until sufficient evidence has been heard.
Former Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago once described impeachment as a unique process — both quasi-judicial and quasi-political. She cited the idea of citizens adopting an attitude of “vigilant waiting.” Vigilant means we are paying attention. Waiting means we have not decided before all the arguments have been heard.
Democracy requires more from citizens than voting every few years. It requires judgment. And judgment requires something increasingly scarce in an age of outrage, algorithms and instant opinions: the humility to listen.
Perhaps we should spend less time asking, “Which side am I on?” Instead ask: What is the claim? What is the evidence? Does the conclusion follow? Have I listened fairly to the other side? And would I apply the same standard if the personalities were reversed?
Senator-judges will eventually render their judgment.
But the quality of our democracy may depend just as much on the quality of the judgments being formed outside the Senate chamber — by millions of citizens watching, listening and, hopefully, thinking.
The views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of his office as well as FINEX.
Benel Dela Paz Lagua was previously EVP and chief development officer at the Development Bank of the Philippines. He is an active FINEX member and an advocate of risk-based lending for SMEs. Today, he is independent director in progressive banks and in some NGOs.