Since her detractors in the House of Representatives have long intended to oust her, Vice President Sara Duterte asked the Senate impeachment court to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment against her, saying the complaint is constitutionally defective.

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

The Senate impeachment court has scheduled the start of Duterte’s trial on 6 July.

The Vice President cited the House lawmakers who declared they already had “enough votes” to impeach her while the proceedings were still underway, statements, she said, that proved 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’s lawyers said.

Clarificatory hearing assailed

In April, the House Committee on Justice unanimously found sufficient evidence during its clarificatory hearings to establish probable cause and endorse the impeachment complaint to the plenary.

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

Duterte argued that instead of merely 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” meant to “impugn her reputation before the general public,” insisting that only the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, had the constitutional authority to try impeachment cases.

The Vice President likewise challenged several allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment, saying the 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 could not constitute impeachable offenses because those positions were not subject to impeachment under the Constitution.

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

These were the third and fourth complaints filed, respectively, by Fr. Joel Saballa and Atty. Nathaniel Cabrera.

Opportunity to contest denied

The evidence, she argued, was “produced and made available with questionable convenience during the course of the mini-trial,” depriving her of any opportunity to confront it and violating her constitutional right to due process.

Duterte further questioned the validity of the impeachment proceedings, saying the referral of the Articles of Impeachment was constitutionally infirm because “there were no deliberations made during the plenary session on 23 February 2026.”

Reiterating a claim she had repeatedly raised since the complaints were filed, Duterte described the impeachment effort as a “fishing expedition.”

“Having been deprived through constitutionally impermissible means, this alleged evidence is excludable as fruits of the poisonous tree and cannot serve as a basis for impeachment,” her response read.

She also 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 on 2 March.

These were the first and second cases filed by former Rep. France Castro and Kiko Aquino-Dee.

“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 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.

The Senate formally convened as an impeachment court on 18 May and is scheduled to open Duterte’s impeachment trial on 6 July.

Ping’s take

Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson dismissed claims the upcoming trial of Duterte was intended to derail the Senate’s investigation into alleged anomalies in flood control projects, saying such accusations were being advanced by politicians already gearing up for the 2028 elections.

Former Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano said earlier last week that the impeachment proceedings should not come at the expense of the Senate’s investigation into the billions of pesos worth of flood control projects.

Lacson said the Senate majority has opted not to engage with the narrative, describing it as early political maneuvering rather than a legitimate concern about the chamber’s priorities.

“Let’s just let them campaign. That will not derail anything. We understand why they’re saying those things because some of them are planning to run in the 2028 elections. We understand their Facebook Live broadcasts, their social media posts, and their interviews with the media,” Lacson said in a television interview.

“We understand why they’re saying those things because some of them are already in campaign mode this early. As for us in the majority, our position is not to engage,” he added.

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, now chaired by Sen. Erwin Tulfo, has taken over the investigation into the alleged flood control anomalies.