MANILA – Vice President Sara Duterte and her legal team have called for the immediate dismissal of the impeachment complaint against her, labeling the proceedings “fundamentally flawed” and “tainted by evident bad faith.”
The move comes as the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, prepares to begin trial proceedings on July 6. While the defense argues the case is a product of political theater, the prosecution maintains that the Vice President has failed to provide a factual defense against the specific articles of impeachment.
The legal battle centers on whether the House of Representatives followed constitutional mandates in initiating the charges or if the process was used as a political tool to secure a pre-determined outcome. At stake is the interpretation of impeachment provisions under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which treats removal of a sitting vice president as an exceptional remedy reserved for grave offenses.
Procedural Challenges and Constitutional Objections
In a reply uploaded to the Senate’s impeachment website, Duterte’s defense argued that the House of Representatives Committee on Justice usurped the authority of the Senate by conducting what they described as a “mini trial” or a “fishing expedition” to build a case, instead of merely determining the sufficiency in form and substance of the complaint.
The defense contended that the articles of impeachment violate the doctrinal ruling in Duterte vs. House of Representatives, which, they argue, mandates that charges must be based on impeachable acts or omissions committed specifically in relation to the officer’s current office and during their current term. That case has become a touchstone for limits on politically motivated impeachment initiatives.
The legal team further characterized the House proceedings as follows:
- Grave Abuse of Discretion: The defense stated the proceedings bore “all the hallmarks of grave abuse of discretion at its very foundation,” suggesting that the Committee on Justice exceeded the bounds of its fact-finding mandate.
- Staged Performances: The reply alleged that televised committee hearings were “staged performances and a trawling search for justification for a pre-ordained result,” framing the inquiry as driven by political spectacle rather than evidence-based assessment.
- Evidentiary Violations: A motion to exclude evidence was filed, claiming much of the data was obtained through “constitutionally impermissible means” and should be discarded as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” a standard more commonly invoked in criminal procedure but now being tested in the impeachment context.
Response to Articles of Impeachment
The Vice President’s reply addressed four specific articles of impeachment, combining constitutional arguments with challenges to the factual basis of the charges.
Misuse of Confidential Funds
The defense denied any culpable violation of the Constitution or graft, noting that the Commission on Audit (COA) findings are not yet final and remain subject to standard review processes. They asserted that no evidence exists to prove the Vice President personally gained from these funds, and argued that premature reliance on unfinalized COA observations risks politicizing routine audit mechanisms intended to safeguard public spending.
Unexplained Wealth
The defense argued that allegations regarding unexplained wealth pertain to Duterte’s previous tenure as mayor and vice mayor of Davao City, which they classified as “non-impeachable offenses” because they predate her assumption of national office. Additionally, the camp claimed the inclusion of assets belonging to her spouse, lawyer Manases Carpio, was a “malicious attempt to manufacture unexplained wealth” and a violation of bank secrecy laws, warning that allowing such evidence could chill legitimate financial privacy protections for public officials’ families.
Bribery and Procurement
Regarding allegations of giving monetary gifts to Department of Education officials to bypass procurement laws, the defense stated that the prosecution misrepresented witness testimony to “lend color” to the accusation. They maintained that the cited acts, even if proven, do not reach the constitutional threshold of “betrayal of public trust” and pointed out that public procurement rules already provide administrative and criminal remedies separate from impeachment.
Threats Against Government Officials
The defense addressed statements made by Duterte regarding the hiring of an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. The legal team argued these statements were an exercise of “freedom of speech in opposition to the administration’s policies” and do not constitute a crime, framing them as rhetoric in a sharply polarized political environment. They further contended that sanctioning such remarks through impeachment could have a chilling effect on robust debate among top officials.
Prosecution Rebuttal
The prosecution responded through a manifestation, arguing that the Vice President’s defense relies almost exclusively on procedural and jurisdictional objections rather than a line-by-line rebuttal of the factual allegations.
The prosecution stated that while Duterte asserted she committed no impeachable offense, her answer “offered no coherent factual narrative that directly refuted the charges set forth in the articles of impeachment.” They further claimed the response was not a genuine engagement with the charges but a strategic attempt to secure a dismissal on technical grounds, warning that allowing such a strategy to prevail could weaken the House’s capacity to hold senior officials to account in future cases.
Senate Trial Logistics and Oversight Conflicts
The impeachment trial is expected to be one of the Senate’s primary constitutional obligations. Under the 1987 charter, senators sit as judges when hearing impeachment cases transmitted by the House, with the Senate President presiding and a qualified majority required for conviction. The proceedings will unfold in public session, turning the Senate floor into both a legal forum and a national stage.
Some lawmakers expressed concern that the trial could disrupt the Senate’s legislative calendar and its oversight functions, specifically an ongoing investigation into irregularities in government flood control projects. The tension highlights how a high-stakes impeachment can crowd out other governance priorities, from infrastructure scrutiny to budget deliberations.
Senator Panfilo Lacson dismissed these concerns, attributing them to political motivations and early campaigning for the 2028 national elections.
“We’ll just leave them to their campaigning. Everyone knows the impeachment trial will not derail the flood control probe. Such tales are not surprising because we have colleagues in the Senate who are running in 2028, thus their heavy use of Facebook Live and other social media platforms, and media interviews,” Lacson said.
The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, currently chaired by Senator Erwin Tulfo, is continuing the inquiry into flood control anomalies, focusing on government agencies and contractors amid recurring national flooding. Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano also stated that the impeachment trial should not halt the flood control investigation, underscoring a cross-party interest in maintaining institutional oversight even as the chamber assumes its quasi-judicial role.
Trial Schedule
Senate Secretary Renato Bantug Jr. has outlined a schedule designed to balance the trial with the chamber’s other legislative duties, including committee work and preparation for the President’s annual State of the Nation Address (SONA) before the joint session of Congress.
Phase 1: July 6 to July 27 (Until the State of the Nation Address)
- Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday: Trial sessions at 2 p.m., with senators sitting as members of the impeachment court.
- Thursday: Hearings for motions and procedural matters, including rulings on evidence and trial protocols.
- Friday: No sessions, allowing time for internal caucuses and preparatory work.
Phase 2: Post-July 27 (After the SONA)
- Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday: Trial sessions at 2 p.m., resuming the presentation of evidence and witness examinations.
- Monday: Reserved for Senate committee hearings and regular legislative business, in an attempt to prevent the impeachment from fully eclipsing policy-making.
The Senate Impeachment Court will convene for the first session on July 6 at 2 p.m. The proceedings will test not only the political resilience of the Duterte and Marcos camps but also the capacity of the country’s institutions to apply the rules of impeachment under the 1987 Constitution in a politically charged environment, while keeping parallel oversight work-such as the flood control probe-on track.