“Mars… ano ang latest?”
If you’re Filipino, chances are you smiled.
Somewhere along the way, the familiar greeting—“Mare, ano ang latest?”—gave birth to one of the country’s most recognizable pop-culture characters: Marites, always searching for the newest buzz.
We laugh at Marites, perhaps because we recognize a little of ourselves in her.
But today, Marites has graduated from the street corner to the corridors of power.
Inside the Senate, the historic impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte—the first Philippine vice president to face trial before an impeachment court—unfolds through constitutional arguments, evidence, and witness testimony.
Outside, another proceeding is already underway—across Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube, and countless group chats.
As the Senate examines evidence, social media gravitates toward viral close-ups, appearances, and fleeting moments. Memes spread faster than transcripts, and group chats declare winners and losers before the next witness even takes the stand.
Anyone following the impeachment solely through these fragments could mistake them for the week’s defining constitutional issues.
It is tempting to conclude that this is uniquely Filipino.
But it is not.
Oxford evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar has shown that much of human conversation revolves around other people. Long before smartphones, gossip helped build social bonds.
Our instinct to ask, “Ano ang latest?” is deeply human.
What is new is the attention economy.
Herbert Simon, a Nobel laureate and pioneering scholar of decision-making, warned that “a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.” In a world of abundance, attention becomes the scarce resource—and whoever captures it shapes perception.
Psychologist Daniel Kahneman, whose work transformed our understanding of judgment and decision-making, explains why this works: people rely on fast, intuitive thinking before slower, more deliberate reasoning. A meme demands little effort. Constitutional analysis demands much more.
Advertisement
Put together, these insights explain the impeachment’s parallel drama. Viral clips and appearance-centered debates are not random distractions, but predictable outcomes of human instincts amplified by technology.
Thus, we find ourselves watching two different trials.
The impeachment is testing the Constitution.
The internet is revealing human nature.
That distinction matters because impeachment is constitutional in form but political in effect. Senator-judges weigh evidence under formal rules, while millions of people form judgments in real time based on what captures their attention.
And senator-judges do not deliberate in a political vacuum. They may be bound by evidence and constitutional duty, but they are also elected officials operating within a climate of public pressure, partisan expectation, and relentless scrutiny.
The judges outside the Senate do not cast a formal vote. Yet their reactions can shape the political cost of every position taken, every question asked, and every verdict eventually rendered.
One court sits inside the Senate, bound by testimony, procedure, and constitutional duty.
The other convenes behind millions of screens, responding to what is most visible, emotional, and easily remembered.
The court of public opinion cannot convict or acquit. But it can determine whether the eventual verdict is accepted, rejected, or remembered with lasting suspicion.
Public perception does not dictate what senator-judges should decide. But it shapes whether their decision is regarded as credible and fair.
The Constitution assumes judgment follows evidence.
The digital age often reverses that order.
The Senate will decide the case.
The public will decide how the case is remembered.
Because in politics, memory is never merely history.
It is power.
And that is the verdict before the verdict.
