VP Sara and the impeachment that stalled

Vice President Sara Duterte was never removed from office, but the impeachment complaints filed against her in 2025 nonetheless reshaped the country’s political landscape—testing constitutional procedures, straining institutions, and redefining her relationship with the Marcos administration.

At the center of the controversy were allegations involving the misuse of confidential funds and remarks later interpreted as a threat against the President. While Duterte’s allies mobilized early—most visibly through a massive Iglesia ni Cristo rally opposing impeachment—the House of Representatives pressed forward, voting on 5 February to impeach her with more than two-thirds support.

What followed was not a swift reckoning, but a prolonged procedural standoff. The Senate’s delayed action, the return of impeachment articles to the House for “constitutional compliance,” and the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling declaring the articles unconstitutional shifted the narrative from accountability to process. By August, the Senate formally archived the case, citing the one-year ban on impeachment proceedings.

Throughout the episode, the core allegations remained unresolved. The Commission on Audit confirmed that P125 million in confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President had been spent in just 11 days, while Duterte’s use of similar funds during her tenure at the Department of Education drew further scrutiny. These issues formed the backbone of accusations ranging from graft to betrayal of public trust.

The controversy was further inflamed by a resurfaced November 2024 video in which Duterte appeared to suggest retaliation against the President and other officials if she were killed—remarks authorities treated as a security threat, though Duterte later said she was misinterpreted.

In the end, the impeachment did not culminate in a trial or verdict. Instead, it left behind lingering questions: about the limits of impeachment, the speed of accountability, and whether political power can outpace constitutional intent.