Former spokesperson of the House Impeachment Panel Atty. Antonio Bucoy maintains that the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte is not “dead in the water” while the ruling remains pending before the Supreme Court.
Speaking at a forum, Bucoy said it would be appropriate to file a new impeachment complaint should the Supreme Court eventually dismiss the case.
“We still have not made Vice President Sara Duterte accountable. We should not give up in our crusade on accountability,” Bucoy said.
The Vice President faced an impeachment complaint in the House of Representatives on February 5, endorsed by 200 lawmakers, over allegations of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and graft and corruption stemming from the controversy over confidential funds.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the complaint was covered by the one-year bar rule and that Duterte’s right to due process was violated. As a result, no new impeachment case may proceed until February 6, 2026.
The House has since filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that it must be allowed to exercise its constitutional duty to prosecute impeachable officials.
Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon noted that while other officials under the Vice President may face charges before the Office of the Ombudsman, Sara Duterte herself cannot be charged unless she is first impeached or her term ends.
Bucoy, however, said there is still a way to recover the alleged misused confidential funds even without Duterte leaving office—through the civil forfeiture mechanism under Republic Act 1379.
Under this process, the Office of the Ombudsman may compel the return of assets deemed disproportionate to a government official’s lawful income, classifying them as unexplained wealth.
“This is a civil forfeiture, not a criminal (forfeiture). Will this be a hindrance in her prosecution later on if she’s not in power? No,” Bucoy said in Filipino.
“Prioritize recovering what was stolen. This is not a punishment. According to the law, this is civil in nature that only the Ombudsman can initiate,” he added.
Ridon also called on Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla to demonstrate the same proactive approach seen in flood control investigations when reviewing the confidential funds controversy.
“Ombudsman right now is very proactive. Hopefully the same manner he gives in all flood control investigations… he will also exhibit in relation to the use of confidential funds,” Ridon said.