Political skirmishes driven by bitter rivalries ahead of the 2028 primary battle have brought clarity to previously unclear areas — particularly questions about the potential abuse of the incumbent’s power.

In January 2026, Vice President Sara Duterte faced multiple plunder and graft complaints filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, primarily over the alleged misuse of over P600 million in confidential funds during her tenure as Education Secretary and Davao City Mayor.

These include ridiculous allegations of money laundering and anomalous fund transfers.

This followed a tumultuous impeachment in February 2025 for allegations of fund misuse and conspiracy, but the Supreme Court (SC) invalidated it in July, citing violations of the one-year impeachment bar and due process.

The SC also provided guidelines and requirements for impeachment proceedings to make them credible rather than mere partisan play.

The 2025 ruling in favor of VP Duterte underscores the judiciary’s focus on due process in impeachment — a position that could support the argument that criminal cases should not bypass the constitution’s prescribed removal mechanisms.

The ruling barred new impeachment attempts until 6 February 2026, creating a window for criminal probes without the immediate threat of removal.

The gray area concerns an impeachable officer, like the Vice President, being criminally sued without impeachment, despite constitutional protections.

The 1987 Constitution grants explicit immunity from suit only to the sitting President, grounded in jurisprudence such as Soliven v. Makasiar (1988), to prevent distractions from executive duties.

For the VP, no such provision exists; the Department of Justice (DoJ) and legal experts consistently affirm she lacks this shield.

As an impeachable official under Article XI, Section 2, removal is solely via impeachment, but this doesn’t automatically confer immunity from prosecution.

Such actions have precedents, such as cases against former VP Jejomar Binay.

However, a minority view, echoed by election lawyer Romulo Macalintal and former President Rodrigo Duterte, argues for extending presidential immunity to the VP as a co-impeachable officer to avoid political harassment.

No SC ruling has directly settled this for the Vice President, making Duterte’s case potentially precedent-setting.

The probability that VP Duterte will petition the SC to clarify this immunity question is high, based on political, legal, and strategic factors.

As a frontrunner in the 2028 elections despite the scandal allegations, challenging the suits could delay proceedings and help preserve her political viability, especially as her camp has consistently dismissed the complaints as “fishing expeditions.”

Lawmakers like Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice explicitly predict she’ll elevate the issue to the SC.

Strategically, her lawyers’ options include filing a certiorari petition to question the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) against probes.

This mirrors tactics in her father’s era, where suits were stalled via SC appeals, with low risk since, if denied, it doesn’t worsen her position.

If granted, however, it could establish VP immunity, benefiting future incumbents.

For the first time, the Court could definitively rule on VP prosecutorial immunity, balancing constitutional protections with public accountability, thereby reshaping jurisprudence and ensuring that impeachable officers aren’t unduly shielded or harassed.

Who says nothing beneficial will come out of the ongoing bitter political feud?