Impeachment of Sara Duterte is unconstitutional - OMNIZERS
PHILIPPINES

Impeachment of Sara Duterte is unconstitutional

August 3, 2025
Apple Majait

Supreme Court Declares Impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte Unconstitutional

Manila, Philippines – In a landmark 13-0-2 decision, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has declared the Articles of Impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional. The ruling, handed down today, effectively halts the impeachment proceedings in the Senate, citing violations of the Constitution’s one-year rule and the right to due process.

The Court’s decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, underscores the principle that even the powerful are subject to the rule of law. Justice Leonen’s powerful words echoed throughout the ruling: “Our fundamental law is clear: the end does not justify the means.” The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal procedure, stating, “There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time. This is what the Rule of Just Law means. This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment.”

The case stemmed from four separate impeachment complaints filed against the Vice President. Three were submitted by private individuals and groups in December 2024, while a fourth, initiated by a resolution from over one-third of the House of Representatives (HOR) members, was transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025. This fourth complaint formed the basis of the Articles of Impeachment challenged before the Supreme Court.

The Court’s decision meticulously dissected the legal arguments, addressing key issues of constitutional interpretation and procedural fairness. The justices found that the one-year bar on initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official, as stipulated in Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, had been violated. The Court clarified that this one-year period begins from the dismissal or termination of a previous complaint, effectively barring any new impeachment attempt until February 6, 2026.

A significant point of contention revolved around the House’s compliance with the ten-session-day requirement for including a verified impeachment complaint in its Order of Business. The Court ruled that the HOR had met this requirement, clarifying that a “session day” is not equivalent to a calendar day, but rather the period from the commencement to adjournment of a session.

However, the Court also issued a cautionary note, emphasizing that the Constitution mandates the immediate inclusion of endorsed impeachment complaints in the Order of Business within ten session days. The Court stressed that neither the Secretary General nor the Speaker of the House has discretion in determining the commencement of this ten-day period. The House, the Court ruled, can consolidate properly commenced and endorsed complaints, but it cannot delay the process beyond the constitutional timeframe.

Beyond the procedural aspects, the Court’s decision delved into the crucial issue of due process in impeachment proceedings. The ruling established several key due process requirements:

  • Sufficient Evidence: The Articles of Impeachment must include sufficient evidence to support the charges, accessible to all House members considering endorsement.
  • Respondent’s Right to be Heard: The respondent must have a chance to respond to the charges and evidence before the Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to the Senate.
  • Reasonable Time for Deliberation: The House must be given a reasonable time to deliberate on the impeachment complaint, a timeframe subject to judicial review if deemed insufficient.
  • Impeachable Acts: Charges must relate to impeachable acts or omissions committed during the current term of office, and must meet the gravity threshold specified in the Constitution.

The Court further clarified the procedural requirements for initiating impeachment under Article XI, Section 3(4), emphasizing the need for the House to provide the respondent with a copy of the Articles of Impeachment and accompanying evidence, allowing for a response within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, the Court stressed the importance of making all materials available to all House members to ensure proper deliberation.

The Court’s concluding remarks resonated with a profound sense of judicial responsibility: “It is not our duty to favor any political result. Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the Rule of Just Law. We will not allow the passions of a political moment to overshadow the sobriety of fairness inherent in due process of law.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is immediately executory and will be published on the Supreme Court website. The full text of the decision and concurring opinions will be available shortly. This ruling marks a significant moment in Philippine jurisprudence, reaffirming the supremacy of the Constitution and the importance of upholding due process in all matters, even those of a highly political nature.

July 25, 2025

“Our fundamental law is clear: the end does not justify the means.”

“There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time.  This is what the Rule of Just Law means.  This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment.” (Leonen, SAJ. Duterte v. House of Representatives)

In a 13-0-2 Decision, with the Justices present voting unanimously, and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa inhibiting and Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh on leave,* the Supreme Court En Banc on July 25, 2025, declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional, noting that it is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings.

However, the Court said it is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her. But any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026.

The case stemmed from four impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte. The first three were filed before the House of Representatives (HOR) by private individuals and different groups on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024.

A fourth complaint was lodged by a resolution approved by more than one-third of the HOR members of the 19th Congress on February 5, 2025, which was transmitted as the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate on the same day.

This was followed by two petitions filed before the Supreme Court challenging its constitutionality.

The Decision, written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, ruled that all legal issues involving impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review, “considering the nature of the offices and the institutions that are subject to impeachment, its effect on the independence of constitutional departments and organs, and its nature as a constitutional process.”

“The impeachment process is primarily a legal and constitutional procedure but with political characteristics. It may be sui generis but it is not a purely political proceeding. This means that the Bill of Rights, especially the due process clause and the right to speedy disposition of cases, applies to the entire impeachment process,” it said.

Although the Court does not determine whether an impeachable officer may be removed or disqualified from political office, it emphasized that “it has the duty to construe the process mandated in the Constitution.”

In declaring that the Articles of Impeachment were barred by the one-year rule, the Decision differentiated the first three complaints from the fourth complaint. The first three, it said, were filed under Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution which allows any citizen to file a verified complaint with an endorsement by any HOR member. The fourth one was through Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution through a verified complaint or resolution filed by at least one-third of the HOR members.

The Court took note that the HOR in the 19th Congress did not act on the first three endorsed complaints, which were considered “terminated or dismissed” upon the adjournment of the HOR.

“[T]he three impeachment complaints were archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025. Therefore, no new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than February 6, 2026,” it held.

Under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, “[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.” According to the Decision, the one-year bar is reckoned “from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or no longer viable.” 

A key issue in the petitions is whether the HOR complied with the ten-session-day requirement under the Constitution for including a verified impeachment complaint in the Order of Business of the HOR. The Court ruled that the HOR was able to comply with the requirement by “putting the three endorsed impeachment complaints in the Order of Business of the House of Representatives” since a session day is not equivalent to a calendar day. “It is a period that starts from a call to order until the session is adjourned, regardless of the passage of time.”

However, the Court reminded the HOR that Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution “clearly requires that a verified impeachment complaint be immediately put in the Order of Business within ten session days from its endorsement.” The Constitution does not grant either the Secretary General or the Speaker of the House “any discretion to determine when this period commences.”  Consequently, the House of Representatives is not granted any discretion “except to refer these matters to the proper committee within three session days.” However, the House may opt to “consolidate all impeachment complaints properly commenced and endorsed” within these periods.

The Court also determined that due process applies to the impeachment process. It laid down the following due process requirements in impeachment proceedings.

  1. The Articles of Impeachment or resolution must include evidence when shared with House members, especially those who are considering its endorsement.
  2. The evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the Articles of Impeachment.
  3. The Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence should be available to all members of the House of Representatives, not only those who are being considered to endorse.
  4. The respondent in the impeachment complaint should have been given a chance to be heard on the Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence to prove the charges prior to its transmittal to the Senate, despite the number of endorsements from House members.
  5. The House of Representatives must be given a reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether they will endorse an impeachment complaint. The Court, however, has the power to review whether this period is sufficient, but petitioner—who invokes the Court’s power to review—should prove that officials failed to perform their duties properly.
  6. The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. For the President and Vice President, these acts must be sufficiently grave amounting to the crimes described in Article XI, Section 2 or a betrayal of public trust given by the majority of the electorate.

For the other impeachable officers, the acts must be sufficiently grave that they undermine and outweigh the respect for their constitutional independence and autonomy;

  1. To ensure that respondent in the impeachment complaint is heard under the requirement of due process in the procedure under Article XI, Section 3(4), the House of Representatives is required to:

(a) Provide a copy of the Articles of Impeachment and its accompanying evidence to the respondent to give him/her an opportunity to respond within a reasonable period to be determined by the House rules. The Constitution only requires an opportunity to be heard. It is up the respondent to waive this fundamental right and opt to present his/her evidence at the Senate trial; and

(b) Make the Articles of Impeachment, with its accompanying evidence and the comment of the respondent, available to all the members of the House of Representatives. It is the House—not one-third of the House—that has the sole prerogative to initiate impeachment complaints. Thus, there must be some modicum of deliberation so that each member representing their constituents can be heard and thus convince others of their position. The transmittal however will only take place upon the qualified vote of one-third of the House.

We quote from the final note of the unanimous Decision:

“It is not our duty to favor any political result. Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the Rule of Just Law.

We cannot concede the sobriety of fairness inherent in due process of law to the passions of a political moment. Our fundamental law is clear: The end does not justify the means. 

We understand our history. We have learned that in the past, momentary desires to do what is convenient and concede means to ends have inadvertently created precedents that weaken the succor of law for those who dissent, or those at our society’s margins, or those who may have fallen out of grace from the powers that be. We have learned that the clash of political interests in the past, often disguised by noble intentions, has obscured the need to address the real problems of corruption, inequality, poverty, and disempowerment faced by our people.

We will not allow that to happen again. We will not hesitate to declare what is legal, just, and right for our people.

There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time.  This is what the Rule of Just Law means.  This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling is immediately executory. It shall be deemed served on the petitioners and released upon publication in the Supreme Court website and receipt of the parties of their digital copy in accordance with A.M. No. 25-05-16-SC or the Guidelines on the Transition to Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court.

We urge everyone to read the full text of the Decision and the concurring opinions.

The full text of the Decision and Concurring Opinions in G.R. No. 278353 (Sara Z. Duterte v. House of Representatives et al.) and G.R. No. 278359 (Atty. Israelito P. Torreon et al. v. House of Representatives et al.), July 25, 2025, shall be uploaded to the SC website once available.

* Revised as of July 25, 2025, 6:00 p.m.

Supreme Court Halts Impeachment of Philippine Vice President, Duterte Remains in Office

Manila, Philippines – In a stunning turn of events that reverberates through Philippine politics, the Supreme Court today declared the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional. The landmark decision, issued just months after the Senate received the articles of impeachment, effectively ends the attempt to remove Duterte from office – at least for now.

The Court’s unanimous ruling (with two justices recused) throws a wrench into the already complex political landscape, leaving the nation grappling with the implications of this unprecedented legal challenge. While the impeachment process against Duterte marked a first in Philippine history, the Supreme Court’s intervention ensures the Vice President remains in her position, albeit under a cloud of legal uncertainty.

The journey to this decisive ruling began in December 2024, when four separate impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte. These complaints, alleging various offenses, eventually made their way through the House of Representatives, receiving approval on February 5, 2025. This paved the way for the Senate to convene an impeachment trial, a process fraught with political maneuvering and delays.

Despite calls for an immediate trial, the Senate only convened months later. On June 10th, 2025, a significant procedural move saw the Senate return the articles of impeachment to the House, a decision that foreshadowed the Supreme Court’s ultimate intervention.

The Supreme Court’s decision, however, goes beyond a simple procedural technicality. The justices found the impeachment process unconstitutional, citing violations of the Constitution’s one-year rule on impeachment proceedings and breaches of due process. This effectively bars any further attempts to impeach Duterte until February 6, 2026.

While the Court’s ruling prevents a Senate trial and protects Duterte from immediate removal, it does not absolve her of the charges levied against her. The decision leaves open the possibility of future impeachment attempts, provided they adhere strictly to constitutional requirements.

The impact of this decision extends far beyond the immediate political ramifications. It sets a significant precedent for future impeachment proceedings, clarifying the constitutional boundaries and emphasizing the importance of due process. The ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional legality, even in the face of highly charged political situations.

The nation now awaits the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision and the ensuing political analysis, as the legal battle concludes, but the political implications are far from settled. Vice President Duterte, having survived this unprecedented impeachment attempt, remains in office, but the legal shadow cast by this ruling will undoubtedly continue to shape the political landscape for months to come.

The Duterte Impeachment: A Constitutional Earthquake in the Philippines

The tumultuous five-month saga of the impeachment attempt against Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte concluded on July 25, 2025, not with a Senate trial and verdict, but with a seismic ruling from the Supreme Court: the impeachment complaint was unconstitutional. This unprecedented legal battle, marked by procedural wrangling and high-stakes political maneuvering, leaves Duterte in office but casts a long shadow over the future of Philippine politics.

The initial tremors hit in December 2024, when four separate impeachment complaints landed on the desks of the House of Representatives. These serious allegations included culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. The accusations ranged from controversial use of confidential funds for both the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, to alleged assassination threats against President Bongbong Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez, and even involvement in extrajudicial killings.

The House, on February 5, 2025, delivered a decisive blow, voting 215 to 18 (with 66 abstentions) to impeach Duterte. This 70% majority triggered the next phase: a trial in the Senate. However, the path to trial was far from smooth. Months passed with delays and procedural disputes, culminating in a June 10th Senate vote to remand the articles of impeachment back to the House. This 18-5 vote, effectively questioning the constitutionality of the process, signaled the impending legal showdown.

The House, undeterred, certified the impeachment complaint as constitutional on June 11th, but the question of whether the 20th Congress would proceed remained open, hanging precariously until the Supreme Court’s intervention.

The Supreme Court’s July 25th ruling brought the drama to a dramatic close. In a 13-0-2 decision (with two justices not participating), the Court declared the fourth impeachment complaint – the one that ultimately triggered the Senate proceedings – unconstitutional. The Court’s reasoning centered on violations of the Constitution’s one-year rule on impeachment proceedings and procedural flaws that violated Duterte’s right to due process.

This decision, while preventing Duterte’s removal from office for now, does not exonerate her. The Supreme Court’s ruling explicitly states that it does not absolve Duterte of the charges, leaving the door open for future impeachment attempts, provided they comply with the Constitution’s strict requirements.

The Duterte impeachment saga stands as a landmark case in Philippine jurisprudence. It highlights the intricate interplay between political power and constitutional law, and serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and potential pitfalls of the impeachment process. While Duterte remains in office, the legal and political earthquakes unleashed by this case will continue to reshape the Philippine political landscape for years to come. The question of whether future attempts will be made, and whether they will succeed, remains a compelling and open question.

The Unraveling of UniTeam: A Philippine Power Struggle

The 2022 Philippine elections saw the resounding victory of Bongbong Marcos as President and Sara Duterte as Vice President, a triumph celebrated as the success of their UniTeam alliance. However, the seemingly unshakeable bond between these two powerful figures has fractured spectacularly over the past two years, culminating in a public and bitter falling-out that has sent shockwaves through Philippine politics.

The initial honeymoon period was short-lived. While Duterte initially accepted the position of Secretary of Education, a role she reportedly viewed as a stepping stone, her preference for the Defense portfolio hinted at a potential power struggle brewing beneath the surface. This underlying tension quickly escalated into open conflict.

Over the next two years, Duterte’s relationship with key figures in the Marcos administration deteriorated sharply. Friction with House Speaker Martin Romualdez and First Lady Liza Araneta became increasingly apparent, signaling a growing rift within the ruling coalition. This internal strife culminated in Duterte’s resignation from Lakas–CMD, the dominant party within the ruling coalition, in May 2023, a move that sent clear signals of her growing disillusionment.

Despite these clear signs of strain, President Marcos publicly insisted as late as January 2024 that the UniTeam remained “vibrant,” a statement that now reads as remarkably naive in light of subsequent events. Duterte’s resignation from her post as Education Secretary in June 2024 further underscored the deepening chasm between the two leaders.

The final, explosive chapter in this political drama unfolded in the latter half of 2024. In a stunning revelation, Duterte publicly declared that she and Marcos were never friends, merely political allies in the 2022 elections, a statement that directly contradicted Marcos’s earlier assertions of a close personal relationship. Marcos responded with accusations of deception, revealing the extent of the personal and political betrayal felt within the Presidential Palace.

Duterte’s subsequent, scathing critique of Marcos’s presidential leadership in October 2024 delivered the final blow to the UniTeam myth. Her assessment of Marcos as someone “who doesn’t know how to be president” exposed the deep-seated animosity and irreconcilable differences that have shattered the once-unbreakable alliance.

The unraveling of the UniTeam is more than just a personal feud; it’s a stark illustration of the shifting power dynamics within Philippine politics. The once-dominant alliance, which swept to victory on a wave of popular support, has fractured, leaving a vacuum of power and raising questions about the stability of the current administration and the future of Philippine political alliances. The fallout between Marcos and Duterte serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the fragility of political partnerships built on expediency rather than shared ideology or genuine trust.

Philippine Politics Rocked by Assassination Threat Allegations

Manila, Philippines – The already turbulent waters of Philippine politics have been further roiled by explosive allegations of assassination threats and a subsequent presidential intervention that has raised eyebrows across the nation. The controversy centers around Vice President Sara Duterte and her startling claims regarding threats against herself and retaliatory actions.

The drama unfolded on November 22, 2024, during a late-night press conference initiated by Zuleika T. Lopez, a figure currently embroiled in a separate legal battle involving the House of Representatives. In response to a question about her personal security, Duterte made the shocking claim that she had spoken with a contract killer, outlining a plan to eliminate President Bongbong Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez should she be assassinated.

Duterte’s statement, delivered in a mix of Filipino and English, was immediately interpreted as a grave threat against the highest echelons of the Philippine government. The administration swiftly labeled the situation an “active threat,” underscoring the seriousness with which the allegations were taken. The timing of the statement, coinciding with Duterte’s resistance to a House order to transfer Lopez to the Correctional Institution for Women, further fueled speculation about the underlying motives.

However, Duterte later attempted to clarify her remarks, suggesting that her words were not meant as serious threats but rather a reflection of her genuine fears for her safety in the face of perceived threats against her life. This clarification, however, did little to quell the storm of controversy that had already engulfed the nation.

President Marcos himself weighed in on the matter on November 25th, seemingly downplaying the threat while confirming that he had taken steps to address the situation. His response, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, lacked the decisive action many expected from the nation’s leader.

The situation took another unexpected turn on November 29th when President Marcos confirmed that he had instructed the House of Representatives to refrain from pursuing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Duterte. This decision, despite the ongoing rift between the two leaders, was justified by Marcos as a way to avoid a wasteful political exercise that would ultimately have no positive impact on the Filipino people. He described the conflict as “a storm in a teacup,” a characterization that many found inadequate given the gravity of the initial allegations.

The entire episode leaves the nation grappling with unanswered questions. Was Duterte’s initial statement a genuine threat, a desperate cry for help, or a calculated political maneuver? What is the true extent of the security threat, and what measures are being taken to address it? And perhaps most importantly, what does President Marcos’s decision to halt impeachment proceedings signify about the power dynamics within the Philippine government? The answers to these questions remain elusive, leaving the future of Philippine politics shrouded in uncertainty.

Duterte’s Confidential Funds: A Deepening Mystery in Philippine Politics

The use of confidential and intelligence funds by Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte has become a major point of contention, raising serious questions about transparency and accountability within the highest levels of government. While the use of such funds is not inherently unusual, the circumstances surrounding Duterte’s allocation and spending have sparked a firestorm of controversy, casting a long shadow over her administration.

The controversy initially centered around Duterte’s utilization of confidential funds during her tenure as both Vice President and Secretary of Education (DepEd) in 2022 and 2023. This practice stands in stark contrast to her predecessor’s administration, which did not utilize confidential funds for the Office of the Vice President (OVP). Duterte’s office has maintained that the compartmentalized structure of the OVP allowed for direct handling of these funds by her chief of staff and a special disbursing officer, Gina F. Acosta, without any intermediary oversight. However, this explanation has done little to alleviate growing concerns about a lack of transparency.

The situation escalated in 2024 when the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability launched investigations into allegations of fund misuse, particularly after the deferral of the 2025 OVP budget. These investigations uncovered alarming allegations from former DepEd officials, who claimed to have received monthly cash gifts of ₱50,000 from Duterte. Further testimony from another former official corroborated these claims, indicating that the practice continued until late 2023, coinciding with the emergence of questions surrounding the confidential funds.

The controversy deepened with the release of acknowledgement receipts submitted to the Commission on Audit (COA) by Duterte’s offices. Several lawmakers expressed serious doubts about the authenticity of these receipts, citing irregularities such as unusual and potentially fictitious names, as well as discrepancies in dates and signatures. Adding to the mystery, Duterte herself claimed to have never seen these receipts, further fueling suspicions of impropriety.

The situation reached a critical juncture in December 2024 when the Philippine Statistics Authority revealed that 60% of the 677 individuals listed as recipients of confidential funds from DepEd had no records in the national civil registry. This staggering statistic raises profound questions about the legitimacy of the expenditures and the potential for misuse of public funds.

The ongoing investigation into Duterte’s handling of confidential funds is far from over. The lack of transparency, the questionable nature of the supporting documentation, and the significant discrepancies uncovered so far have created a climate of distrust and demand for a full and thorough accounting of these funds. The outcome of this investigation will have significant implications not only for Duterte’s political future but also for the broader issue of financial accountability within the Philippine government. The nation awaits a definitive resolution, hoping for a transparent and impartial investigation that will restore public trust.

Duterte’s Silence on the South China Sea: A Calculated Strategy or Political Weakness?

Vice President Sara Duterte’s conspicuous silence on the escalating dispute between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea has become a significant point of contention, sparking debate about her political strategy and raising questions about the effectiveness of the Philippine government’s response to this critical issue.

Duterte’s consistent refusal to comment on the matter, instead deferring all inquiries to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defense, has drawn considerable criticism. This reticence has been interpreted by some as a calculated political strategy, while others view it as a sign of political weakness or a lack of engagement with a crucial national security concern.

The criticism has come from various quarters, including allies of President Bongbong Marcos within the House of Representatives and prominent figures like Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson for the West Philippine Sea, Jay Tarriela. These critics argue that Duterte’s silence undermines the government’s unified front on the issue and sends a mixed message to China regarding the Philippines’ resolve. They contend that a more vocal and assertive stance from the Vice President would strengthen the nation’s position in the ongoing territorial dispute.

However, President Marcos has stepped forward to defend Duterte, stating that commenting on the South China Sea dispute is not within the purview of the Vice President or the Secretary of Education (a position Duterte previously held). This defense suggests a deliberate strategy to maintain a clear division of responsibilities within the government’s handling of the sensitive issue.

Duterte’s silence, whether intentional or not, has created a vacuum in the public discourse surrounding the South China Sea. This absence of a clear and consistent message from a high-ranking official like the Vice President leaves room for ambiguity and potentially weakens the Philippines’ negotiating position.

The debate surrounding Duterte’s approach highlights the complex interplay between political strategy, national security, and public perception. Her critics argue that her silence is a missed opportunity to demonstrate strong leadership and national unity on a critical issue. Conversely, her supporters might argue that her deference to the relevant government agencies maintains a consistent and coordinated approach.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of Duterte’s strategy remains to be seen. The long-term consequences of her silence on the South China Sea dispute will depend on the evolving geopolitical landscape and the Philippines’ ability to navigate the complex challenges posed by China’s assertive claims in the region. The debate underscores the crucial role of communication and a unified national stance in addressing such sensitive and high-stakes issues.

The Impeachment Shadow Over Duterte: A Building Storm

The impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte wasn’t a sudden eruption; it was a gathering storm, with various political actors signaling their intentions long before the formal complaints were filed. The path to the ultimately unconstitutional impeachment attempt was paved with months of escalating tensions, strategic maneuvering, and public pronouncements that foreshadowed the eventual legal battle.

As early as August 2023, the Makabayan bloc, a left-leaning political alliance in the House of Representatives, considered initiating impeachment proceedings against Duterte. Their primary concern centered on the alleged misuse of confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in 2022. ACT Teachers representative France Castro, a prominent member of the Makabayan bloc, characterized this alleged misuse as an “impeachable offense,” setting the stage for future action. However, the bloc ultimately deemed the timing “premature,” prioritizing a thorough House investigation before proceeding with impeachment.

The political climate shifted dramatically in the months that followed. By August 2024, the growing rift between Duterte and President Bongbong Marcos had become undeniable. Duterte herself predicted the filing of impeachment charges, citing her deteriorating relationship with the President and information gleaned from allies within the House. This prediction underscored the increasingly precarious political position she occupied.

The calls for impeachment intensified in September 2024, with Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), a prominent left-wing activist group, publicly declaring the necessity of impeaching Duterte due to her alleged misuse of confidential funds in 2022 and 2023. This public pressure, combined with the ongoing investigations, further fueled the momentum toward impeachment.

Interestingly, the House of Representatives itself attempted to downplay the brewing storm, issuing a denial of any plot to file impeachment complaints in September 2024. This denial, however, proved to be a temporary reprieve, as the formal impeachment complaints were filed later that year, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court’s intervention and the halting of the proceedings.

The timeline of events leading up to the impeachment attempt reveals a calculated and strategic approach by various political factions. The initial hesitation of the Makabayan bloc, followed by the increasingly vocal calls for impeachment from other groups, and the eventual formal filing of charges, all paint a picture of a meticulously planned effort to remove Duterte from office. The ultimate failure of this effort, however, underscores the complexities and inherent challenges of the impeachment process in the Philippine political system.

The Three-Pronged Assault: Impeachment Complaints Against Vice President Duterte

The impeachment attempt against Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte wasn’t a single, isolated event; it was a coordinated three-pronged assault, launched within a short period and highlighting the diverse and serious allegations leveled against her. The rapid succession of complaints, each with its own focus and supporting evidence, underscored the depth and breadth of the opposition’s concerns.

The first salvo was fired on December 2, 2024, with the filing of a formal impeachment complaint containing a staggering 24 articles of impeachment. These articles were categorized into four key areas: graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes. The accusations went beyond mere financial irregularities, encompassing serious allegations of involvement in extrajudicial killings of drug suspects and a perceived failure to take a strong stance against China’s aggressive claims in the South China Sea dispute. This broad-ranging complaint aimed to paint a picture of a Vice President unfit for office due to a pattern of alleged misconduct.

Just two days later, on December 4th, a second impeachment complaint emerged, this time spearheaded by 70 activists led by the prominent left-wing group, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN). This complaint, while narrower in scope, focused intensely on the alleged misuse and mishandling of confidential funds. The activists accused Duterte of “gross abuse of discretionary powers” concerning the ₱612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to both the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education. This targeted approach highlighted the financial irregularities as the central issue, demanding accountability for the alleged mismanagement of public funds.

The third and final complaint, filed on December 19th, added another layer of complexity to the situation. This complaint, originating from a coalition of religious workers, lawyers, and civil society workers within the House of Representatives, focused on the charge of betrayal of public trust. While the specifics of this complaint weren’t immediately as widely publicized as the first two, its emergence within the House itself underscored the significant level of concern and opposition Duterte faced within the political establishment.

The rapid succession of these three distinct yet interconnected impeachment complaints created a powerful and multifaceted challenge to Duterte’s position. Each complaint offered a different perspective on the alleged misconduct, highlighting the gravity and scope of the accusations. While the Supreme Court ultimately deemed the impeachment process unconstitutional, the sheer number and diversity of the complaints served as a powerful indictment of Duterte’s actions and underscored the deep-seated political divisions within the Philippines.

The Fourth Complaint: A Political Earthquake in the Philippines

The fourth impeachment complaint against Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte, filed on February 5, 2025, wasn’t merely another attempt to remove her from office; it was a political earthquake that exposed deep fissures within the ruling coalition and sent shockwaves through the nation. The sheer number of signatories, the high-profile names involved, and the gravity of the accusations all contributed to the unprecedented nature of this event.

The complaint, signed by an overwhelming 215 members of the House of Representatives—far exceeding the constitutionally mandated one-third threshold—represented a significant turning point in the already tumultuous political landscape. The charges were explosive, encompassing a range of serious allegations, including corruption, plotting the assassination of President Bongbong Marcos, involvement in extrajudicial killings, and incitement to insurrection and public disorder. The breadth of these accusations painted a picture of a Vice President operating outside the bounds of the law and posing a threat to national stability.

The swift transmission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, bypassing a plenary vote, highlighted the urgency and decisiveness of the move. This unprecedented action underscored the gravity of the situation and the determination of the House to pursue the impeachment process. The subsequent revelation that an additional 25 lawmakers had added their names to the complaint, bringing the total to 240, further solidified the strength of the opposition.

The geographical distribution of the signatories revealed a complex political map. While significant support came from Luzon and the Visayas, the fact that 41 out of 60 district representatives from Duterte’s home island of Mindanao also signed the complaint was particularly striking. This broad-based support, even within Duterte’s own region, indicated a widespread loss of confidence in her leadership. However, the notable exception of Duterte’s native Davao Region, where only one out of eleven district representatives signed the complaint, highlighted the enduring local support she still commanded.

The inclusion of high-profile figures like President Marcos’s own son, Ilocos Norte representative Sandro Marcos, and Speaker Romualdez among the signatories added a layer of dramatic irony and political intrigue. Their participation demonstrated the depth of the rift within the ruling coalition and the extent to which the accusations against Duterte had eroded trust even among her former allies.

The fourth impeachment complaint against Sara Duterte was far more than a simple legal proceeding; it was a stark reflection of the deep political divisions and power struggles within the Philippines. The sheer number of signatories, the gravity of the charges, and the high-profile nature of the participants all contributed to making this event a pivotal moment in Philippine political history. The Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling, while halting the impeachment process, did little to diminish the significance of this unprecedented political challenge to the Vice President.

The Seven Articles of Impeachment Against Vice President Sara Duterte: A Detailed Breakdown

The impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte presented a formidable list of seven articles, each alleging serious breaches of public trust and violations of the Philippine Constitution. These articles, detailed below, paint a picture of alleged misconduct ranging from assassination plots to corruption and human rights abuses.

Article 1: Assassination Plot

  • Allegation: Contracting an assassin and plotting to murder President Bongbong Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez, as publicly admitted by Duterte herself in a live broadcast.
  • Violations: Betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, other high crimes. This article highlights the extraordinary gravity of the alleged threat to the highest levels of government.

Article 2: Misuse of Confidential Funds

  • Allegation: Misuse and malversation of confidential funds appropriated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).
  • Violations: Betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption. This article focuses on financial irregularities and potential abuse of power.

Article 3: Bribery

  • Allegation: Bribing high-ranking Department of Education officials.
  • Violations: Betrayal of public trust, bribery, graft and corruption. This article alleges a direct violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

Article 4: Unexplained Wealth

  • Allegation: Amassing unexplained wealth and failing to disclose all properties and interests in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), violating Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
  • Violations: Culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust. This article targets potential corruption through the concealment of assets.

Article 5: Involvement in Extrajudicial Killings

  • Allegation: High crime of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, linked to extrajudicial killings during her father’s “war on drugs,” including alleged involvement with the Davao Death Squad.
  • Violations: Other high crimes. This article addresses the extremely serious allegations of human rights abuses.

Article 6: Destabilization and Sedition

  • Allegation: Acts of destabilization, sedition, and insurrection, either independently or in concert with others.
  • Violations: Betrayal of public trust, other high crimes. This article alleges a threat to the stability of the government itself.

Article 7: Totality of Conduct

  • Allegation: The cumulative effect of Duterte’s conduct as Vice President, encompassing all the aforementioned acts.
  • Violations: Betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption. This article emphasizes the overall pattern of alleged misconduct.

These seven articles represent a comprehensive indictment of Vice President Sara Duterte’s conduct in office. The gravity of the allegations, ranging from financial impropriety to potential involvement in violent crimes, underscores the seriousness with which the impeachment complaint was pursued. While the Supreme Court ultimately deemed the impeachment process unconstitutional, the details outlined in these articles remain a significant part of the ongoing political narrative surrounding the Vice President.

Setting the Stage: Key Players in the Duterte Impeachment Drama

The aborted impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, while ultimately halted by the Supreme Court, featured a carefully orchestrated cast of characters, each playing a crucial role in shaping the narrative and managing the flow of information. The appointment of a spokesperson and the selection of legal teams, though ultimately rendered moot by the Supreme Court’s decision, highlight the meticulous planning and strategic maneuvering that characterized this high-stakes political drama.

Senate President Francis Escudero’s swift appointment of Reginald Tongol as the official spokesperson for the impeachment court on June 11, 2025, was a significant move designed to control the narrative and ensure transparency. Escudero’s emphasis on accurate, responsible, and timely communication underscored the importance of managing public perception during this highly sensitive period. Tongol’s background as a political communications consultant with expertise in both legal and media affairs made him a strategic choice to navigate the complex communication challenges inherent in such a high-profile case.

The selection of the prosecution team further highlighted the strategic planning involved. The House of Representatives assembled a formidable team of eleven representatives to defend the impeachment motion before the Senate, acting as the impeachment court. The appointment of House Minority Leader Marcelino Libanan as the informal lead prosecutor signaled a concerted effort to present a united front and ensure a robust legal challenge. The willingness of the House to accept offers of legal assistance from third-party lawyers further demonstrated a commitment to building a strong case, regardless of internal political affiliations.

The foresight demonstrated by Speaker Romualdez in anticipating potential changes in the House’s composition after the 2025 elections is particularly noteworthy. His proactive invitation to representatives-elect Leila de Lima and Chel Diokno to replace outgoing prosecutors Loreto Acharon and Jil Bongalon, should the trial extend into the 20th Congress, reveals a dedication to maintaining the momentum of the impeachment effort, even in the face of potential political shifts.

The appointment of Tongol and the assembly of the prosecution team, while ultimately overshadowed by the Supreme Court’s decision, reveal the meticulous planning and strategic considerations that went into the impeachment proceedings. These actions illustrate the seriousness with which the House approached the impeachment attempt and the lengths to which they went to ensure a fair and transparent process, even as the political landscape shifted around them. The meticulous preparation, even in the face of an ultimately unsuccessful outcome, underscores the significance of this unprecedented impeachment attempt in Philippine political history.

Representative and District with Bloc

RepresentativeDistrictBloc
Gerville LuistroBatangas–2ndMajority
Romeo AcopAntipolo–2ndTBD
Rodge GutierrezParty-listMajority
Joel ChuaManila–3rdMajority
Jil BongalonParty-listOut of the 20th Congress
Loreto AcharonGeneral Santos
Marcelino LibananParty-listMinority
Arnan PanaliganOriental Mindoro–1stMajority
Bel ZamoraSan JuanMajority
Lorenz DefensorIloilo–3rdMajority
Jonathan Keith FloresBukidnon–2ndMajority
Leila de LimaParty-listMinority
Chel DioknoParty-listMinority

The Legal Battle Lines Drawn: Prosecution and Defense Teams in the Duterte Impeachment

The attempted impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte saw the assembly of two formidable legal teams, each prepared to engage in a high-stakes battle over the allegations against her. While the Supreme Court’s intervention ultimately prevented a trial, the composition of both the prosecution and defense teams reveals the considerable resources and strategic planning invested in this significant political event.

The prosecution, led by House Minority Leader Marcelino Libanan, appointed litigation lawyer Antonio Bucoy as their spokesperson. This strategic move ensured a clear and consistent flow of information to the public, managing the narrative surrounding the impeachment proceedings. Bucoy’s role was crucial in shaping public perception and communicating the prosecution’s arguments effectively.

On the defense side, preparations began remarkably early. Sara Duterte’s legal team initiated preparations as far back as November 2023, anticipating the possibility of impeachment proceedings. The involvement of former President Rodrigo Duterte, who offered his services to the defense team in December 2024, added a significant layer of political weight and experience to the defense. This move highlighted the seriousness with which the defense approached the potential trial and the determination to mount a robust legal challenge.

The formal submission of the defense team’s appearance to the Senate impeachment court on June 16, 2025, further solidified the legal battle lines. The impressive roster of sixteen lawyers from the prestigious Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law firm demonstrated the considerable legal firepower assembled to defend the Vice President. The list of lawyers, including prominent figures like Philip Sigfrid Fortun and Gregorio Narvasa II, underscored the commitment to providing a comprehensive and rigorous defense.

The composition of both the prosecution and defense teams reveals a carefully orchestrated legal battle, reflecting the high stakes involved and the determination of both sides. While the Supreme Court’s decision rendered the trial moot, the preparation and organization of these legal teams underscore the seriousness with which the impeachment attempt was pursued and defended. The substantial legal resources deployed on both sides highlight the significance of this event in Philippine political history.

The Duterte Impeachment: A Complex Web of Political Strategy and Legal Uncertainty

The attempted impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte was far from a straightforward legal process; it was a complex interplay of political maneuvering, legal interpretations, and strategic calculations that extended far beyond the immediate implications of the case itself. The diverse opinions and analyses surrounding the proceedings highlight the inherent uncertainties and potential long-term consequences of this unprecedented event.

Antonio Soriano of the Citizens’ Watch for Good Governance offered a critical perspective, questioning the “shotgun” approach of the impeachment complaint. Soriano highlighted the need to prove intent regarding Duterte’s alleged assassination threat and argued that actions taken during her time as mayor of Davao City should not be grounds for impeachment. Furthermore, he raised concerns about the public disclosure of details regarding the alleged misuse of confidential funds. Intriguingly, Soriano even speculated that the impeachment attempt might inadvertently benefit Duterte’s potential electoral ambitions in 2028, suggesting a strategic element to the timing and nature of the accusations.

The differing viewpoints on the likelihood of success in the Senate further underscored the uncertainty surrounding the impeachment process. While the impeachment gained traction in the House, the need for a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate presented a significant hurdle. This uncertainty fueled speculation about the political motivations behind the impeachment attempt and its potential impact on the broader political landscape.

Ronald Llamas, a political advisor with extensive experience, offered a compelling analysis of the potential political ramifications. He suggested that delaying the impeachment proceedings until after the 2025 midterm elections would effectively render President Marcos a lame-duck president, highlighting the high stakes and potential consequences of the timing of the impeachment. Llamas’s interpretation of Marcos’s earlier pronouncements against impeachment as either a genuine stance or a tactical maneuver further underscored the complexities of the political calculations at play.

The post-election analysis added another layer of complexity. While some claimed that the impeachment motion negatively impacted the ruling coalition’s standing in Mindanao, others countered that the reelection of a majority of Mindanao lawmakers who supported the impeachment demonstrated the limited impact of the controversy on voter preferences.

Finally, the question of whether Duterte could have avoided disqualification by resigning before a conviction exposed a significant legal gray area. The differing opinions of legal experts, highlighting the lack of clear precedent and the potential for varied interpretations of Article XI, Section 3(7) of the Philippine Constitution, underscored the uncertainty surrounding the legal implications of a potential resignation. The comparison to the second impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump further emphasized the lack of clear-cut answers and the potential for varied legal interpretations.

The Duterte impeachment attempt, therefore, transcended a simple legal battle. It became a microcosm of Philippine politics, exposing the intricate interplay of legal processes, political strategies, and competing interpretations of constitutional law. The uncertainty surrounding the legal and political ramifications continues to shape the ongoing political discourse in the Philippines.

Copyright © 2025 OMNIZERS