Vice President Sara Duterte has now filed her Answer Ad Cautelam to the impeachment complaints against her. And judging from the lineup, she did not come lightly armed. Sixteen lawyers signed the pleading. That is less a legal team and more an Integrated Bar of the Philippines chapter meeting.

But after going through the Answer, my main takeaway was surprisingly basic. For all the legal firepower supposedly behind it, the document feels confused at its core. It muddles two concepts that any first-year law student should be able to keep apart: ultimate facts and evidentiary facts. And once that distinction collapses, the whole framing starts to wobble. Either her side does not understand a basic procedural point, or they are deliberately muddying the waters in the hope that the public will not notice.

The difference is simple enough. Ultimate facts are the essential allegations that, if true, justify legal action. Evidentiary facts are the supporting details and proof used to establish those allegations.

If the issue is theft, saying “Inday pocketed Juan’s 1,000 pesos without permission” is already an ultimate fact. You do not need, at that point, the CCTV footage, the marked bill, or the testimonies of three eyewitnesses. Those come later. Those are evidentiary facts.

For years, impeachment in the Philippines was fairly straightforward in procedural terms. The House initiated it, the Senate tried it, and the evidence was fully tested there. But after the Supreme Court rulings in July 2025 and January 2026, there is now a new stage in the House itself. The Committee on Justice now conducts a preliminary evidentiary hearing within the 60 session days provided by the Constitution.

Which is why it is so odd to read an Answer that behaves as if the case should not even move because the complainants have not already proven everything in full. That is the wrong frame. The question at this stage is not whether guilt has already been established beyond doubt. The question is whether the complaints allege sufficient ultimate facts, supported enough to justify proceeding with an impeachment trial in the Senate.

On jurisdiction, the Constitution could hardly be clearer. The exclusive power to initiate impeachment belongs to the House of Representatives. If the complaint alleges acts that could amount to a betrayal of public trust, or to any of the other grounds in Article XI, and the respondent is an impeachable officer such as the Vice President, then the House has jurisdiction. Full stop.

The argument that some allegations should be ignored because they were supposedly committed while she was the Department of Education secretary rather than Vice President is also weak.

Impeachment is not about which title you happened to be wearing at the exact moment. It is about whether you are fit to continue holding high public office. You do not get to split yourself into multiple personas for purposes of accountability. Vice President in the morning, Cabinet Secretary in the afternoon, then somehow a different person altogether when questions of integrity come up.

And then there are the allegations of Ramil Madriaga, the VP’s supposed “bagman.” Whether he is credible or not, whether his claims are true or not, are questions of evidence. It is not something resolved by clever soundbites in a written Answer. That is what hearings are for. That is where testimony is tested, documents are weighed, and truth is either built up or torn down.

Which is why, in the end, this Answer Ad Cautelam reads less like a serious legal response and more like a political script. It feels designed not to clarify, but to generate talking points for supporters and perhaps lay the groundwork for another trip to the Supreme Court.

But if the Vice President is really ready to face the charges, as she has repeatedly claimed since last year, then what is needed is not further confusion, but a clear, straightforward response. And on that front, this Answer falls short badly.