Vice President Sara Duterte must first be removed from office via impeachment before the Office of the Ombudsman can proceed with filing criminal charges — including plunder, graft, and malversation — against her, a House prosecutor said Monday.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua cited a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that bars criminal prosecution of an impeachable officer for offenses that are also grounds for impeachment, unless the official is first removed from office.

“The Vice President — an impeachable officer — as far as I know, has to wait for the outcome of the impeachment before [facing] other charges,” said Chua, who chairs the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, during a press briefing.

Chua referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. 146486 (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals), based on a 1995 disbarment case involving former Ombudsman Aniano Desierto. The ruling established that the constitutional process of impeachment must first be completed before criminal or administrative charges can proceed.

“Just like the Ombudsman, before she can be charged, she must be impeached first,” said Chua, referring to Duterte. “I don't know how this will be reconciled with the case of our Vice President — if they decide to issue the decision before the impeachment court's judgement comes out.”

The Constitution allows only the President, Vice President, Supreme Court justices, constitutional commission members, and the Ombudsman to be removed via impeachment for offenses including culpable violations of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

Notably, the 1987 Constitution does not explicitly grant executive immunity to the President or Vice President. However, in the 2019 De Lima vs. Duterte ruling, the Supreme Court held that a sitting President is immune from suit or investigation while in office.

Unlike the President, legal scholars and the Department of Justice have argued that the Vice President does not enjoy the same immunity, leaving the officeholder potentially vulnerable to prosecution while still serving.

The Ombudsman has already ordered Duterte and her subordinates to respond within 10 days to corruption allegations based on findings from Chua’s House committee.

The charges include plunder, bribery, technical malversation, falsification, and perjury, among others, tied to the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds. These include ₱500 million allocated to the Office of the Vice President and P112.5 million to the Department of Education, which Duterte also headed for two years.

Chua viewed the Ombudsman’s swift response to the committee report as “a welcome development,” though he said it’s best that Ombudsman Samuel Martires would let the impeachment conclude first before it launches a full-blown probe into the confidential funds.

“If they could watch the impeachment, perhaps at least they would discover more evidence, it would be better for us. But just the same, if they push through with this now, we’re willing to coordinate at the same time,” the House prosecutor said.

Chua also rejected speculation that the Ombudsman was rushing the probe ahead of Ombudsman Samuel Martires’ retirement on 27 July.

Over the weekend, ACT Teachers Rep. France Castro and incoming House prosecutor Leila de Lima raised concerns over Martires’ impartiality, noting that he was appointed by former President Rodrigo Duterte, the Vice President’s father.

The Ombudsman will ultimately decide whether there is sufficient basis or probable cause to file criminal charges before the Sandiganbayan.

Unlike impeachment, which may only result in removal from office and disqualification, a conviction in the Sandiganbayan could result in imprisonment.

Vice President Duterte was impeached by the House for allegedly misappropriating hundreds of millions in confidential funds. She has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations politically motivated and intended to derail her possible 2028 presidential run.