There is enough at stake in an impeachment trial to demand that every prosecutor come prepared, ask clear questions, and explain how the evidence supports the allegations. Public officials should expect scrutiny, especially when their work could help determine whether another elected official stays in office.
Atty. Ysabel Zamora is no exception. Her questions, arguments and conduct during the proceedings are open to criticism. People are entitled to point out gaps in her presentation or question the relevance of the testimony she introduced. Being a woman does not place her beyond accountability.
But accountability requires us to identify what was wrong and explain why. Calling a woman flirtatious or mocking the way she speaks does little to help the public assess her work. It assigns meaning to her mannerisms without establishing whether her questions were improper or her arguments unsupported.
There is a difference between saying a question failed to establish a fact and suggesting that the woman asking it was trying to attract attention. The first invites discussion. The second invites people to judge her through assumptions about how women should behave.
That distinction matters because a woman should not have to prove her seriousness by adopting a particular voice or suppressing every trace of personality. Professionalism can be assessed through preparation, clarity, respect for the proceedings, and the quality of the work. Those standards give us something concrete to examine.
The reaction to Zamora also raises a question about how we discuss politics in the Philippines. When a hearing becomes material for online ridicule, how much of the evidence survives the conversation? How many people come away understanding what the witness established, what remains disputed and what the other side has challenged?
An impeachment trial demands attention to those questions. A prosecutor’s delivery may attract notice, but the public still needs to understand the testimony. Mockery can consume that attention without adding anything to our understanding.
This does not mean everyone who disliked her questioning was being sexist. Some viewers may have concerns about her approach, and those concerns deserve to be heard on their merits. But criticism loses substance when it moves from examining a woman’s work to assigning sexual motives to her behavior.
Nor does this episode justify condemning Filipinos as a people. It does, however, give us reason to examine what we tolerate in our own political circles. Do we object to personal attacks only when the target is someone we support? Do we excuse the same treatment when it is directed at someone on the other side?
A standard that changes with political loyalty offers little protection to anyone. If sexual insults are unacceptable when used against one woman in public office, they should remain unacceptable when used against her opponent.
No one has to admire Zamora, agree with her politics or accept the prosecution’s case. She remains answerable for her work. The evidence she presents must still withstand scrutiny, and the defense must have room to challenge it.
We can insist on all of that while expecting a discussion that treats women as people whose arguments deserve an answer. Criticize the question and examine the evidence. Point out the mistake. There is more public value in doing those things than in turning a woman’s voice and smile into the issue.
