Vice President Sara Duterte has asked the Senate impeachment court to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment against her, arguing that the House of Representatives had already decided to impeach her before the proceedings were completed, rendering the complaint constitutionally defective.

In her 51-page answer to the Articles of Impeachment, submitted on 25 May and released by the Senate on Friday, Duterte claimed the impeachment case was "void" because it was "tainted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith indicative of prejudgment."

She cited statements made by House lawmakers claiming they already had enough votes to impeach her while proceedings were still ongoing, arguing that these remarks showed the committee's finding of probable cause was a foregone conclusion.

“The speeches of the House Members declaring ‘enough votes’ to impeach Respondent despite the pending proceedings demonstrate that the resulting alleged finding of probable cause was a foregone conclusion,” Duterte said.

The House Committee on Justice unanimously found probable cause during its clarificatory hearings and endorsed the impeachment complaint to the plenary.

On 11 May, the House impeached Duterte and transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Duterte argued that, instead of determining whether probable cause existed, the House panel effectively assumed powers reserved exclusively for the Senate.

She described the committee proceedings as a “procedural artifice” intended to damage her reputation, maintaining that only the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, has the constitutional authority to try impeachment cases.

The vice president also challenged several allegations in the Articles of Impeachment, arguing that lawmakers improperly relied on acts she allegedly committed before assuming the vice presidency.

According to Duterte, allegations arising from her tenure as Davao City mayor and vice mayor cannot constitute impeachable offenses because those positions are not subject to impeachment under the Constitution.

She likewise questioned the evidence presented before the House panel, saying much of it originated from the Saballa and Cabrera complaints and was introduced only after she had already filed her answer.

Duterte argued that the evidence was presented during the course of what she described as a “mini-trial,” depriving her of the opportunity to challenge it and violating her right to due process.

She also questioned the validity of the impeachment proceedings, claiming that the referral of the Articles of Impeachment was constitutionally infirm because there were allegedly no deliberations during the House plenary session on 23 February.

Reiterating a position she has maintained since the filing of the complaints, Duterte described the impeachment effort as a “fishing expedition.”

She further invoked the Constitution’s one-year bar rule, arguing that the Saballa and Cabrera complaints should not have proceeded because two earlier complaints—the Castro and Dee complaints—had already been dismissed.

“Like the Saballa and Cabrera Complaints upon which they are based, the Articles contain no statement of any ultimate facts as the allegations therein remain to be mere speculations, conjectures, conclusions and surmises,” Duterte said.

“The Articles do not contain any sufficient factual and legal bases to sustain any impeachable offense,” she added.

The Articles of Impeachment accuse Duterte of, among others, the alleged misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bribery involving Department of Education officials, and allegedly contracting to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Duterte has denied the allegations.

The Senate formally convened as an impeachment court on 10 June and is scheduled to begin trial proceedings on 6 July.