Two impeach raps filed vs VP as 1-year bar ends

OUSTER MOVE The Makabayan coalition and civil society groups led by Tindig Pilipinas filed separate impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday, believing that the one-year constitutional bar on its filing has lapsed based on the latest Supreme Court ruling. —GRIG C. MONTEGRANDE

Civil society leaders and progressive groups on Monday filed two separate impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte, citing betrayal of public trust over the alleged misuse of confidential funds, culpable violations of the Constitution, graft and corruption, bribery, and other high crimes.

The first complaint was endorsed by the Makabayan coalition, with former lawmakers France Castro and Neri Colmenares among the complainants, while the second was filed by a group led by Kiko Aquino Dee, coconvener of Tindig Pilipinas, and was joined by Akbayan Rep. Percival Cendaña and Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima.

In the first complaint, three grounds for impeachment were mentioned:

• Betrayal of public trust due to Duterte’s alleged gross abuse of discretionary powers over the P612.5 million in confidential funds from December 2022 until the third quarter of 2023.

• Betrayal of public trust due to her alleged gross disregard of transparency and accountability, making a mockery of the audit process by ordering subordinates to prepare implausible accomplishment reports supported by fabricated liquidation reports and falsified documents and submitting these to the Commission on Audit.

• Betrayal of public trust due to Duterte’s alleged dereliction of official duty, with her willful refusal to recognize congressional oversight during budget deliberations and its authority to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

The second complaint listed five articles of impeachment, accusing Duterte of constitutional violations, graft and corruption, bribery and accumulated unexplained wealth, gross incompetence and abuse of power, and that she tolerated extrajudicial killings while participating in efforts to destabilize the government.

Clarification needed

The complaints came as the petitioners believed that the one-year constitutional bar on the filing of impeachment cases has lapsed based on the Supreme Court ruling with finality last month that last year’s impeachment complaint against Duterte was unconstitutional.

However, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, House committee on justice chair, has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to clarify conflicting interpretations of the ruling on the one-year prohibition.

“It depends on which decision you are referring to. If we are talking about the original decision of the [SC], the basis for the one-year prohibition period is the impeachment complaint filed through one-third of the House on Feb. 5, [2025]. That’s why they say that a second impeachment can be filed starting Feb. 6, 2026,” the lawmaker said in a media briefing.

“However, if you are referring to the resolution recently issued by the [SC], they consider that the first impeachment complaint, which was filed on Dec. 2, 2024, due to the House’s inaction, was deemed initiated when the 10-session-day period lapsed. That was on Jan. 14, 2025. By implication, the one-year prohibition period lapsed on Jan. 15, 2026. So, we are at a crossroads again,” she added.

“Which date should we follow? Is it the reckoning period of Feb. 5, or that of Dec. 2? I hope this can be clarified by the Honorable [SC],” Luistro said.

Fr. Robert Reyes, Representative Leila De Lima, and Representative Perci Cendaña, leads civil society groups, religious groups, and concerned citizens in filing a second impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte at the House of Representatives in Quezon City on Monday, February 2, 2026. —GRIG C. MONTEGRANDE

Different rulings

In its July 2025 decision, the high tribunal declared the impeachment complaint against Duterte that reached the Senate as unconstitutional, saying it was barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution.

The case stemmed from four impeachment complaints against Duterte.

The first three were filed by private individuals and different groups on Dec. 2, 4, and 19, 2024, while the fourth was lodged by a resolution approved by more than a third of the members of the House on Feb. 5, 2025, and transmitted to the Senate on the same day.

The high court emphasized in its decision that any subsequent complaint may be filed only starting Feb. 6, 2026.

In a resolution released on Jan. 29, 2026, the SC en banc denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the House.

It said that respondents were not able to comply in putting the three endorsed complaints in the order of business of the House within 10 session days, affirming that the fourth complaint transmitted to the Senate on Feb. 5, 2025, was already barred.

The resolution said “the 10 session days should be reckoned from the filing and endorsement of the first impeachment complaint on Dec. 2, 2024.”

Meanwhile, Malacañang maintained that the President had no involvement in the filing of fresh impeachment complaints against Duterte, his erstwhile ally turned political nemesis.

“The fresh impeachment complaints contained almost the same allegations made in the impeachment complaint filed last year … But even so, we have no hand in this. We are not responsible for the filing of those complaints,” Palace press officer Claire Castro said in a briefing.

At the same time, Senior Deputy Majority Leader Lorenz Defensor said the House would prepare changes to their rules regarding impeachment proceedings to “make it clearer and more definitive.” —WITH REPORTS FROM DEXTER CABALZA AND INQUIRER RESEARCH

******

Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber