Vice President Sara Duterte’s formal response to the Senate impeachment court is an advanced course in political cowardice. Her “Answer Ad Cautelam” filed recently, dismissing the impeachment complaint as “nothing more than a scrap of paper” while simultaneously demanding its dismissal, represents the complete collapse of her manufactured tough-gal persona.

But more concerning is that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, may succumb to the same cowardice that now defines Sara Duterte’s defense strategy.

Duterte’s transformation from saber-rattling strongwoman to procedural-hiding weakling has been swift and total. It was just weeks ago that she declared she wanted a “bloodbath” in her impeachment trial, projecting the fake toughness that has long been her political trademark.

“I want a bloodbath,” she told reporters, claiming her legal team was “in full throttle” preparing for vigorous combat against her accusers.

But when the Senate impeachment court issued its summons requiring her to formally respond to the charges including unexplained bank deposits and P612.5 million in alleged misused confidential funds, her bravado evaporated. Her 34-page response reads like a surrender document, desperately grasping at every conceivable technicality to avoid facing the evidence against her.

The irony is unmistakable: she calls the complaint a “scrap of paper” but devotes 34 pages to arguing why this supposedly worthless document should be dismissed. If the complaint truly lacks merit, why not welcome the opportunity to demolish it in open court? The answer is logical to the guilty — she knows the evidence is damning, and she would rather hide behind legal technicalities than face the truth.

Her justification for this flip-flop has been equally pathetic. She claims she’s simply following her lawyers’ advice, stating that she won’t impose her will over their counsel since they are “more learned in impeachment cases than me.” This admission of intellectual dependence from someone who built her career on intimidation and manufactured strength exposes the hollow core of her political persona.

Sara Duterte has always projected fake toughness to intimidate opponents. When confronted with a real fight, however, she reveals herself to be nothing more than a wimp. Her entire defense strategy — from her Supreme Court petition to her Senate response — is designed to avoid facing the evidence, not to challenge it on its merits.

Central to Sara Duterte’s dastardly retreat is her claim that the impeachment complaint violates the Constitution’s one-year bar. This argument, like her political persona, is built on a false foundation.

The Constitution’s one-year bar, established in the 2003 Francisco vs. House of Representatives case, prevents the harassment of impeachable officials through successive complaints. But Sara Duterte’s team has exploited this protection, claiming the House deliberately delayed transmitting three earlier complaints filed in December 2024 to favor the fourth complaint filed on 5 February 2025 with 215 endorsements.

This argument collapses under scrutiny. The House’s exercise of its political discretion in consolidating the complaints was not only legally sound but constitutionally required. The word “immediate” in the House Rules is a procedural directive, not a constitutional mandate like “forthwith” pertaining to the Senate’s duty.

As we explained in our previous article, without this discretion, impeachment would become a conveyor belt for nuisance complaints — exactly what the one-year bar is designed to prevent.

The Senate now faces its own test of courage. Will the senators demonstrate the integrity that Sara Duterte lacks, or will they succumb to the same cowardice that defines her legal defense?

Some senators are reportedly considering dismissing the case without hearing the evidence — a move that would make them complicit in Sara Duterte’s pusillanimity while displaying their own.

The evidence against Sara Duterte is comprehensive and damning. Unlike previous impeachment cases where key evidence emerged only during trial, this case comes fully documented with audit findings, bank records, and property transactions.

The House prosecution panel has presented a case that goes far beyond political theater — it’s a detailed accounting of alleged criminal misconduct involving hundreds of millions in public funds.

The senators have a duty to let the Filipino people know the strength of the case against their Vice President based on the evidence, not to be condescending with their knowledge of legal technicalities. Dismissing this case without hearing the evidence would frustrate the people’s right to information and sacrifice the Senate’s honor just to shield someone who has repeatedly shown contempt for the institutions she had sworn to serve.

The choice before the Senate as an institution of accountability is ultimately between courage and cowardice. Sara Duterte has already chosen her path — retreat, obstruction, and technicalities. The question is whether the Senate will join her in this legacy.