Two separate impeachment complaints were filed Monday against Vice President Sara Duterte, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled with finality that last year’s articles of impeachment against her were unconstitutional.

The first complaint was endorsed by the Makabayan bloc, with former lawmakers France Castro and Neri Colmenares among the named complainants.

Renato Reyes of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) said the group refiled the impeachment complaint before the Office of the House Secretary General, citing betrayal of public trust over the alleged misuse of confidential funds.

A second impeachment complaint was filed by Kiko Aquino Dee, co-convenor of Tindig Pilipinas; former peace secretary Ging Deles; 2025 Ramon Magsaysay Awardee Flavie Villanueva; and youth and sectoral leaders.

They were joined in the filing by ML party-list Rep. Leila de Lima and Akbayan party-list Rep. Perci Cendaña.

The second group of complainants alleged culpable violations of the Constitution, graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes.

In a statement, Michael Poa of Duterte’s defense team said the filing of new impeachment complaints “comes as no surprise.”

Poa said the Supreme Court has emphasized that impeachment is “not merely a political process initiated by mere allegations or by perceived public acclaim shaped by the propagandistic effect of timed press releases or irresponsible viral posts on social media, as it is a constitutional mechanism governed by standards, evidence, and due process.”

Meanwhile, ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio confirmed that “today is the day” they would file a fresh impeachment complaint against Duterte.

He said the articles of impeachment accuse the Vice President of betraying public trust through alleged “gross abuse of discretionary powers” in the use of P612.5 million in confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education from December 2022 until the third quarter of 2023.

According to the complaint, P125 million was spent by the OVP in just 11 days in 2022. Of that amount, P73 million was disallowed by the Commission on Audit for failure to submit documents proving the success of information-gathering or surveillance activities, failure to specify that purchased items were intended for confidential operations, and use of funds for purposes not allowed under existing guidelines.

The lawmaker said the complaint also accused Duterte of “mocking” the audit process by submitting allegedly fabricated liquidation reports, including receipts issued to supposed fictitious recipients of confidential funds such as “Mary Grace Piattos.”

Tinio said the allegations covered the same P612.5 million confidential fund spending when Duterte concurrently served as Vice President and secretary of education, including the P125 million allegedly spent within 11 days in December 2022.

“Included here was the submission of a fake accomplishment report to the Commission on Audit. Along with the receipt Mary Grace Piattos.”

Tinio said he does not expect the complaint to be dismissed on technical grounds, noting that the high court had already ruled the earlier impeachment complaint against Duterte invalid.

Earlier, the Supreme Court upheld its ruling declaring the articles of impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional and that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the proceedings.

In an en banc decision promulgated on 28 January, the justices unanimously denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives.

“It affirmed that the fourth impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025 was already barred by Article XI, Section 3, subsection (5) of the Constitution,” Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting said.

The Court, however, clarified several points, including the definition of session days.

“Session days as used in Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2) or for purposes of the first mode of initiating an impeachment complaint does not mean legislative session days. A session day for purposes of Article XI in the Constitution was given its plain and ordinary sense, which the Court interprets to mean a calendar day in which the House of Representatives holds a session,” Ting said.