Graft and a betrayal of public trust are among the grounds being considered by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability in an impeachment complaint to be possibly filed against Vice President Sara Duterte over allegations of confidential funds misuse.

Panel chairperson Joel Chua, who heads the ongoing investigation into Duterte’s alleged misuse of public funds, clarified that the initial objective was not to remove the Vice President from office.

However, irregularities purportedly emerged during the hearings, necessitating future legal actions.

Chua specifically cited P16 million in confidential funds spent by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in just 11 days for the rental of safe houses and the use of more than P15.54 million by the Department of Education (DepEd) during Duterte’s term as its secretary.

The funds in question were part of the OVP and DepEd’s confidential funds in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

“Now, those two instances can be considered grounds for impeachment because, clearly, there was a betrayal of public trust and anti-graft practices,” Chua told reporters in a briefing on Monday.

Graft, corruption, and betrayal of public trust are among the grounds Congress may cite to impeach a high-ranking official, along with culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, and other high crimes.

The DepEd, which Duterte headed for nearly two years until her resignation on 19 July, has been accused of falsely claiming that its P15.54 million in confidential funds was used for the Youth Leadership Summits (YLS) in 2023.

Not for informants

The House investigation revealed that certificates for the youth program were issued by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to the DepEd, which the department allegedly used to justify the P15.54 million expense for informant rewards.

Military officials, however, said the certificates were solely in support of YLS activities, not for authorizing any financial transactions related to informants.

They also denied receiving any funds from the DepEd, indicating that the AFP and local government units shouldered most of the summit expenses.

Over the weekend, Senior Deputy Speaker Aurelio “Dong” Gonzalez Jr. warned that the panel might be compelled to file a plunder case against Duterte if she fails to account for the multi-million-peso amounts, noting that she is not immune from lawsuits.

Chua, however, countered that Duterte must first be impeached before a plunder case could be lodged against her.

“We can’t file a plunder case against the VP because she is the sitting Vice President. So, the first step should be impeachment. After impeachment, if it is proven, that’s when cases can be filed against her,” Chua explained.

There is no explicit provision for executive immunity for the President or Vice President under the 1987 Constitution.

However, in the landmark case of Leila de Lima vs Rodrigo Duterte in October 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the President could not be sued or investigated for any criminal offense while in office.

VP not immune to suits

In 2021, several prominent lawyers stated that this privilege does not extend to the Vice President, leaving the VP open to criminal charges while in office.

Veteran election lawyer Romulo Macalintal contended, however, that the VP should also be eligible for the immunity, considering that they are both impeachable officials.

The power to impeach rests solely in the House of Representatives. A Filipino citizen may also file an impeachment complaint, which must be endorsed by a member of the House.

For the impeachment to advance in the Senate, at least one-third of House members must vote in favor, equivalent to 106 members in the current House.

Duterte attended the first panel hearing in September but said she would no longer participate in the House probe, citing ulterior motives behind it.

She accused the House leadership of plotting to impeach her and claimed that the inquiry was aimed at discrediting her ahead of the 2028 presidential election, where she is perceived to be a front-runner.

House leaders have repeatedly denied the allegations, describing them as a desperate attempt to divert attention from the growing scandal, including the alleged distribution of cash envelopes to DepEd officials.