Impending battle

The recent move shifting high-stakes allegations from congressional impeachment hearings straight to the Office of the Ombudsman has reignited a fierce legal and political fight surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte.

As House prosecutors hand over evidence regarding her controversial use of confidential funds to anti-graft investigators, the embattled Vice President undoubtedly is facing a crucial test.

With Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla signaling a fast-tracked review for potential plunder and malversation charges before the Sandiganbayan, the Vice President's legal team has a tough road ahead of the impending battle.

But looking closely at her available legal options, it reveals several clear strategies that her camp can use to protect her office, challenge potential overreach and fight any criminal charges.

For one, her legal team can challenge how these allegations are framed by drawing a clear line between impeachable offenses and regular criminal acts.

Since the questioned funds run into hundreds of millions of pesos—well above the P50 million mark needed for a plunder charge under Republic Act 7080—her lawyers will need to aggressively fight how these expenses are labeled.

Under the law, when actions involve a high-ranking official performing their duties and managing discretionary funds, the defense can argue that administrative compliance with the Commission on Audit (CoA) must be settled first before anyone can prove criminal intent or plunder.

On top of that, if any of these expenses are backed by valid post-audit clearances, certifications, or official exemptions for confidential funds, those documents can serve as a strong shield against malversation charges.

The Vice President’s camp can also question the fairness and process of the Ombudsman's preliminary investigation. If charges are rushed to the Sandiganbayan, her lawyers can file motions to quash or ask for a detailed bill of particulars, arguing that transferring evidence from dropped or modified impeachment articles hurts due process and lacks solid backing.

If you think about it, moving from a political impeachment process to a formal criminal inquiry exposes key procedural weak spots, as the VP’s counsels can demand proof that the evidence collected by House prosecutors was properly authenticated and not driven purely by politics.

If any procedural mistakes happen along the way—like denying her the chance to file complete counter-affidavits or relying on unverified claims—the Vice President can go straight to the Supreme Court.

She could also file petitions for certiorari and ask for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to freeze proceedings at either the Ombudsman or the Sandiganbayan.

Finally, her legal strategy can go on the offensive against side attacks, such as filing perjury or libel countersuits against key witnesses pushing the case.

By proving administrative compliance, demanding strict proof in court, and asking the Supreme Court to check any agency overreach, her defense can systematically dismantle these revived allegations.

Whether we like it or not, the political drama around the Vice President keeps building up, and her legal fate will come down to how well her team uses courtroom procedures, constitutional rights and due process guarantees.