Oust Sara bid gains ground
The advancement of the complaint against the Vice President contrasted with the immediate junking of the bid to impeach President Marcos.
Text size
The advancement of the complaint against the Vice President contrasted with the immediate junking of the bid to impeach President Marcos.
The impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte advanced on Monday after the House Committee on Justice found the third and fourth petitions sufficient in form, allowing the panel to proceed with the deliberations on the sufficiency in substance, preparatory 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 2 February, citing a violation of the constitutional one-year ban on successive filings.
In a 22-10 vote, the panel set aside the Makabayan complaint, the first to be filed, after extensive discussion of when the one-year prohibition lapsed.
The debate centered on the July 2025 Supreme Court ruling stating that a new impeachment complaint may be initiated only on 6 February 2026.
Makabayan lawmakers argued that the prohibition had lapsed in January 2026, citing the High Court’s more recent resolution redefining what constitutes a “session day.”
The advancement of the complaint against the Vice President contrasted with the immediate junking of the earlier bid to impeach President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Co maintained that the Makabayan complaint was filed one year and 18 days beyond the prohibited period, based on the High Court’s January 2026 clarification. She said the tribunal’s reasoning effectively overruled its earlier pronouncement that 6 February was 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 the start of the one-year clock because of the new definition of a session day.
However, Bukidnon Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores argued that the July 2025 SC decision explicitly stated three times that no impeachment complaint could commence before 6 February 2026.
He said that under the rules of statutory construction, “What is implied cannot overturn what is expressed,” adding that any omission must be intentional.
Manila Rep. Joel Chua urged caution, stressing that the House must be careful in interpreting the Supreme Court’s ruling as it involves questions of jurisdiction.
Complaint two withdrawn
Earlier in the hearing, civil society leaders withdrew the second impeachment complaint and expressed support for the third one that was filed by a group of lawyers and priests, saying their 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 public 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 kill the President, the First Lady, and the 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 House members, the complaint will be transmitted to the Senate for trial.
Unending bickering
The vicious cycle of impeachment cases filed against the country’s leaders fuels political bickering, signaling “political instability” to international communities. We should focus instead on more important issues such as labor infrastructure, healthcare, and food security, according to Senator JV Ejercito.
“We are losing much-needed investments from foreign direct investors to our Asean neighbors,” he said.
Ejercito later clarified in an interview that his statement was born “out of exasperation, frustration” because the country remains subpar compared to its neighbors such as Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
He said the Senate is constitutionally bound to act on the impeachment cases against the two highest officials of the country, stressing that he was not singling out Vice President Sara Duterte.
Smoking gun
Meanwhile, ML Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima cited a “smoking gun” as a reason for the House of Representatives to revive the impeachment of VP Duterte.
De Lima told her colleagues that “most of the factual allegations and the annexes in the Saballa et al. complaint were the same as those contained in the articles of impeachment that were forwarded to the Senate in February 2025.”
The solon was referring to the third complaint filed by several petitioners led by Fr. Joel Saballa and Fr. Joselito Sarabia, which she has endorsed.
Last year’s Articles of Impeachment against Duterte were endorsed by 215 House members, more than the threshold of one-third of the chamber’s membership.
“I reiterate, this House has impeached Vice President Sara Duterte before. The records are clear. This House already determined at least once that the allegations against her were serious enough to trigger the constitutional process,” De Lima said.
Presidential run
The Vice President, the daughter of former president Rodrigo Duterte, recently announced her candidacy for the 2028 presidential election. She was impeached by the House last year, only to see the SC toss the case out over procedural issues.
This year’s revived impeachment bid leans heavily on allegations that she misused public funds while in office.
Under the Constitution, an impeachment will trigger a Senate trial. A guilty verdict would result in Duterte being barred from public office, effectively sidelining her in 2028.
The latest impeachment bid, however, comes amid a changed environment with the Vice President ahead in recent polls, according to analysts.
“The political context will be very different, especially now that Sara has declared her candidacy,” University of the Philippines political science professor Jean Franco said.
