As the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte unfold, much of the public conversation has settled on a single question: Did she break the law?

It is the wrong question—or at least an incomplete one.

A constitutional impeachment is not simply a criminal proceeding conducted inside the halls of Congress. It is a constitutional mechanism designed to protect public institutions from officials whose conduct renders them unfit to continue exercising the extraordinary powers entrusted to them. Whether an impeachable officer committed a prosecutable crime is certainly relevant. But it is not the sole measure by which the Constitution demands accountability.

That distinction matters because impeachment serves a purpose fundamentally different from criminal prosecution. Courts determine guilt or innocence under statutes. Impeachment asks whether a public official has faithfully discharged the obligations of high office and preserved the public trust upon which democratic government depends.

The law itself recognizes the breadth of this inquiry.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines conduct as personal behavior or the manner in which a person acts, encompassing both affirmative actions and failures to act. In legal usage, conduct may be described as culpable when it is blameworthy or involves a breach of legal duty, improper when it falls below the standards expected of a reasonable person, or professional when it concerns adherence to ethical responsibilities associated with a particular office or profession.

These distinctions are more than legal semantics. They underscore a principle embedded in constitutional government: public office carries obligations that extend beyond avoiding criminal liability.

The Vice President of the Philippines is not merely another government employee. The office carries immense constitutional authority and symbolic importance. It demands judgment, restraint, integrity, respect for institutions, and fidelity to the Constitution. These are not aspirational virtues. They are essential conditions for maintaining public confidence in democratic governance.

For that reason, impeachment has always examined patterns of behavior, not merely isolated legal violations.

An official may technically avoid criminal conviction yet still engage in conduct fundamentally inconsistent with the dignity, responsibilities, and trust inherent in constitutional office. Conversely, not every controversial or unpopular decision warrants impeachment. The constitutional standard is necessarily higher than ordinary political disagreement but broader than the narrow confines of criminal law.

This is precisely why the Constitution entrusts the impeachment power to Congress rather than to criminal courts. Legislators are called upon to exercise constitutional judgment—not to determine only whether every element of a criminal offense has been established, but whether the totality of an official’s conduct demonstrates continued fitness to wield public power.

That responsibility requires evaluating the whole picture.

It asks whether conduct has strengthened or weakened public institutions. Whether it has elevated or diminished respect for constitutional norms. Whether it has reinforced public confidence or eroded it. Whether the office has been exercised with the prudence and integrity expected of those entrusted with the nation’s highest responsibilities.

The proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte should therefore not be reduced to a legal checklist of criminal statutes. They should also examine whether the conduct alleged—considered in its entirety—is compatible with the constitutional obligations of an impeachable officer.

This is not an invitation to politicize impeachment. Quite the opposite. A mature constitutional democracy distinguishes between policy disputes, partisan disagreements, and conduct that strikes at the integrity of public office itself. Impeachment should never become a substitute for elections, nor should it become a weapon of transient political majorities.

But neither should it be misunderstood as requiring proof of an indictable crime before constitutional accountability may be imposed.

The framers established impeachment because they understood that some forms of misconduct threaten constitutional government even when they fall outside the reach of criminal law. Abuse of public trust, persistent disregard for institutional norms, and conduct incompatible with the responsibilities of high office may all justify constitutional scrutiny.

Ultimately, this impeachment is not simply a referendum on whether Vice President Sara Duterte violated a particular law. It is a test of whether the conduct expected of the Republic’s highest officials remains meaningful.

A democracy cannot endure if its leaders are judged only by whether they have crossed the line into criminality. Constitutional government requires something more demanding: that those entrusted with public power conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the office they hold.

That is the larger question before the Senate. It is also the one the nation should be asking.