House panel OKs 3rd, 4th impeach raps vs Duterte; 1st junked

The House of Representatives of the Philippines Committee on Justice on Monday said it found the third and fourth impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte sufficient in form, allowing the panel to move forward with deliberations on their sufficiency in substance and whether to proceed to a full-blown hearing.

The development came after the committee voted to “set aside” the first impeachment complaint filed by the Makabayan bloc on February 2, citing a violation of the constitutional one-year ban on initiating a new impeachment proceeding.

One-year prohibition debated

In a 22-10 vote, the panel set aside the Makabayan complaint following extensive discussions on when the one-year prohibition lapsed. 

The debate centered on a July 2025 ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which stated that a new impeachment complaint may only be initiated on February 6, 2026.

Makabayan lawmakers argued that the prohibition had already lapsed in January 2026, citing the High Court’s more recent resolution redefining what constitutes a “session day.”

Kabataan party-list Rep. Renee Co maintained that their complaint was filed one year and 18 days after the prohibited period, based on the Supreme Court’s January 2026 clarification. She said the Court’s reasoning effectively overturned its earlier pronouncement fixing February 6 as the earliest date for filing a new complaint.

Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima echoed this view, saying the January 2026 resolution recalibrated when the one-year clock begins because of its new definition of a session day.

However, Bukidnon Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores argued that the July 2025 decision explicitly stated three times that no impeachment complaint could commence before February 6, 2026. He said that under rules of statutory construction, “what is implied cannot overturn what is expressed,” adding that any omission must be intentional.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua also urged caution, stressing that the House must be careful in interpreting the High Court’s ruling as it involves questions of jurisdiction.

Second complaint withdrawn

Earlier in the hearing, civil society leaders withdrew the second impeachment complaint and expressed support for the third complaint filed by a group of lawyers and priests, saying the move was intended to streamline the process and expedite proceedings.

With the first complaint set aside and the second withdrawn, the committee is left with two impeachment complaints to evaluate.

The panel is scheduled to deliberate on Tuesday, 3 March, on whether the remaining complaints are sufficient in substance — the next step before determining whether to elevate the case to the plenary for a full impeachment hearing.

Allegations detailed

The two remaining complaints accuse Duterte of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes.

Among the allegations are the purported misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds; corruption and bribery involving officials of the Department of Education; allegedly contracting an assassin to target the President, the First Lady, and a former House Speaker; amassing unexplained wealth; and committing acts of political destabilization, including sedition and insurrection.

Duterte, who recently announced her bid for the presidency, has yet to issue a comprehensive response to the latest developments.

Under the Constitution, impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives, which has the exclusive power to initiate cases. 

If approved by at least one-third of all members, the complaint will be transmitted to the Senate for trial.