VP: All bluff, no bloodbath
Public officers “must, at all times, be accountable to the people,” or so it is stated in the 1987 Constitution. As a lawyer, even Vice President Sara Duterte wouldn’t deem herself exempt from this mandate, which requires the courage to face one’s accusers.
Yet on March 25, the country’s second most powerful official chose a path she has frequently traveled: the path of the empty chair.
By skipping the House justice committee’s impeachment hearing, Duterte signaled a profound disdain for the very democratic processes she is sworn to uphold and the very due process she has repeatedly demanded of others, but not of herself.
“Right now, the committee has nothing to do but to junk the complaints because it is clear that there is no sufficient evidence [against me],” Duterte said in her statement, questioning why the House would rather “put politics first” before resolving the energy crisis fueled by the Middle East war.
The Vice President went further, saying the invitation by the House panel was intended only to “form a media narrative” during the so-called “mini trial,” a term used by some House members to describe the format of the proceedings. “In this way, the House is using the hearing to conduct a third fishing expedition against me,” Duterte said.
Right to due process
She would rather use her time “to help Filipinos—especially in giving them reminders, going straight to the communities to ease the difficulties on expenses that the families in need are facing,” Duterte said.
This is on-brand for the VP but rich coming from a respondent who, only a year ago, ran to the Supreme Court complaining that her right to due process was violated because she hadn’t been given enough opportunity to be heard.
Now that the House is, for the nth time, providing that exact forum, by offering her the floor to refute allegations of, among others, misusing P612.5 million in confidential funds earmarked for the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, which she once headed, she hides behind a new excuse, calling the proceedings a political stunt.
It seems Duterte wants to have her cake and eat it, too.
Constitutional law expert Paolo Tamase noted that in her petition to the Supreme Court, Duterte’s argument was that she was not given the opportunity to be heard. “And now, she’s essentially complaining that you’re giving her … too much opportunity to be heard,” he said. “So what is it really? It seems that they are not consistent with their positions.”
Most absurd defense
When the proceedings were moving fast, she pleaded for the protection of the courts. Now that the courts have cleared the way and the House is moving deliberately, she dismisses the invitation as a waste of time.
Perhaps the most absurd defense is Duterte’s sudden preoccupation with the economy. While the rising price of oil is a real crisis, the Vice President cannot use it as a shield against allegations of graft. As retired professor Roland Simbulan noted, she is neither the finance chief nor the foreign secretary. “So it’s very clear that she’s just looking for an excuse not to appear,” he said.
The Vice President’s defense lawyers insist they are not being disrespectful, yet their actions suggest otherwise.
On Friday, another group of lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court to block the House proceedings, claiming the justice panel erred in finding the third and fourth impeachment complaints against Duterte to be sufficient. From “lack of due process”, the argument has morphed into “procedural overreach.”
How ironic that Duterte’s current posture is a far cry from her bluff in May 2025, when she claimed she “truly wanted a trial” because she wanted a “bloodbath.”
Delay and distraction
Now the warrior persona has been replaced by a crafty politician hiding behind “answers ad cautelam” and banking on delay and distraction by pivoting to a 2028 presidential narrative to cast herself as a victim of politicking.
In fact, Duterte wouldn’t be wrong to point out that impeachment is a political process, and by tradition, a process often weaponized for partisan purposes by lawmakers beholden to vested interests. But it remains the primary tool to remove impeachable officers who betray their office or commit wrongdoing.
The House is certainly not immune from criticism over any lapse or double standard, but no one can question its legitimate duty to pursue the truth behind serious allegations concerning one’s conduct in government service.
Duterte will be well reminded that public office is a public trust, and that is not just a slogan but a constitutional edict. She must appear at the next scheduled dates in April to address, once and for all, the unanswered questions about her spending of taxpayer money. The people deserve more than no-shows and a blanket denial from their VP.
For someone who has dramatically called for a bloodbath at the House, Duterte’s actions betray what she truly wants: a whitewash.
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
