House vote sends VP Duterte to Senate impeachment trial

By Pexcel John Bacon

THE HOUSE of Representatives on Monday approved the articles of impeachment against Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio after 257 lawmakers voted in favor during plenary session at the Batasang Pambansa, formally sending the case to the Senate for trial.

Twenty-five lawmakers voted against the measure; nine abstained.

The vote exceeded the constitutional one-third threshold required for the articles of impeachment to be transmitted to the Senate, which will convene as an impeachment court.

Meanwhile, the defense team of Ms. Duterte said it was prepared to answer the allegations before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

In a statement issued after the plenary approval, Ms. Duterte’s legal team said the burden now rests on the prosecution to prove the accusations against the Vice-President.

“We are aware of the actions taken by the plenary and with that vote to transmit the articles of impeachment, the burden now rests on the accusers to substantiate their claims in accordance with the Constitution, the law, and rules on evidence,” the defense team said.

The defense team also pointed to pending constitutional issues before the Supreme Court while expressing readiness for the impeachment trial.

“While questions of constitutional significance remain pending before the Supreme Court, we are fully prepared to defend the Vice-President before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, where it is incumbent upon the prosecution to discharge the burden of proof,” the statement added.

Following the vote, House officials said the approved articles of impeachment would be formally transmitted to the Senate under constitutional procedures governing impeachment proceedings.

Committee on Justice Chairperson Gerville R. Luistro defended the legality of the impeachment proceedings after allies of Ms. Duterte questioned hearings conducted by the committee during the House recess.

Party-list Rep. Paolo Henry M. Marcoleta argued that constitutional timelines governing impeachment proceedings referred to “session days” and questioned whether the Justice Committee could continue hearings while Congress was on break.

Ms. Luistro responded by citing House Resolution No. 892, which authorized the committee to continue impeachment proceedings and exercise ancillary powers during the recess from March 21 to May 3, 2026.

“It is respectfully submitted… that all the proceedings before the Justice Committee is within the ambit expressly provided by the House of Representatives in Resolution No. 892,” she said.

Party-list Rep. Sarah Jane I. Elago explained her affirmative vote, saying the impeachment proceedings were necessary to hold high-ranking officials accountable amid ongoing economic difficulties faced by Filipinos.

During the plenary session, Ms. Elago cited rising oil prices, inflation, unemployment, demolitions, disinformation, and corruption as reasons behind Gabriela’s support for the impeachment complaint.

She also linked the impeachment proceedings to allegations involving Ms. Duterte’s confidential funds, claiming the money could have instead been used for food assistance, agricultural subsidies, and educational needs.

Ms. Elago further cited allegations involving discrepancies in Ms. Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), as well as Anti-Money Laundering Council records referenced during the impeachment proceedings.

“We were not born yesterday. Who would believe that he/she had not even a single peso of cash on hand or a single bank deposit from 2019 to 2024?” she said in mixed Filipino and English.

Party-list Rep. Leila M. de Lima, who also voted in favor, said the evidence presented before the House Committee on Justice warranted a Senate trial.

In explaining her affirmative vote, she said the committee reviewed documentary evidence, testimonies, audit findings, sworn statements, financial records, and certifications from government agencies before recommending impeachment to the plenary.

“We saw evidence of misuse and abuse of confidential funds amounting to hundreds of millions of pesos,” she said.

She also cited allegations involving unexplained wealth and suspicious financial transactions allegedly disproportionate to Ms. Duterte’s declared income, as well as statements she described as threats against public officials and the constitutional order.

Ms. de Lima stressed that impeachment is a constitutional accountability mechanism and not political persecution.

“Impeachment is not political persecution; it is not a partisan activity; it is a constitutional accountability mechanism,” she said.

The articles of impeachment center on the alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of P612.5 million in confidential funds under the Office of the Vice-President and the Department of Education.

The complaint also cites notices of disallowance issued by the Commission on Audit involving P73 million in confidential funds in late 2022 and another P375 million covering the first three quarters of 2023.

It also references findings by the National Bureau of Investigation involving similarities in handwriting in acknowledgement receipts, as well as certifications from the Philippine Statistics Authority stating that several names listed in confidential fund documents did not exist in the civil registry.

The articles also cite allegations involving unexplained wealth, discrepancies in Ms. Duterte’s SALN, grave threats, and incitement to sedition.

Under the Constitution, conviction in an impeachment trial requires a two-thirds vote of all senators.

If convicted, Ms. Duterte would be removed from office and disqualified from holding public office.