3 hours ago
1
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — Heated exchanges erupted at the House justice committee as lawmakers took up the third impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.
During its second hearing on Tuesday, March 3, the panel spent more than five hours debating whether the six grounds cited in the complaint were sufficient in substance.
The third complaint was endorsed by Rep. Leila de Lima (ML Party-list), who laid out the six grounds cited in the complaint:
- Alleged plunder, malversation, and graft involving at least P500 million in confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President.
- Alleged plunder, malversation, and graft involving P112.5 million in confidential funds of the Department of Education.
- Alleged corruption and bribery in DepEd.
- Alleged culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, including issuing death threats against President Bongbong Marcos and his allies.
- Alleged unexplained wealth and failure to fully disclose assets and interests in her SALN.
- Alleged promotion of political destabilization, as well as sedition and insurrection.
While no vote has been taken on the complaint’s substance, the debate suggests a looming divide, with Rep. Bong Suntay (Quezon City, 4th District) opposing each allegation and Rep. Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro, 2nd District) challenging most of them.
Alleged misuse of confidential funds
During the deliberation on the first ground, Rep. Lordan Suan (Cagayan de Oro, 1st District) asked De Lima how the complaint establishes a “clear nexus” or directly links the alleged offenses to the vice president.
De Lima said Duterte, as the vice president and head of her office, approves cash disbursements, liquidation and accomplishment reports. The alleged mishandling of public funds also falls under the principle of command responsibility.
“There is testimony to the effect that the instruction to give to various persons not contemplated within the object of confidential funds are through the orders of the vice president,” she added, stressing the pattern of irregularities.
The minority lawmaker also said that much of the documentary evidence supporting the complaint is certified true copies that bear Duterte’s signature, attesting to her knowledge of the certifications of cash advances.
Suntay quickly rebutted, saying signing disbursement vouchers is merely a “ministerial act” for fund release and not an impeachable offense. Rep. Paolo Henry Marcoleta shared the same argument.
“An audit observation memorandum is a preliminary audit finding, it does not establish liability nor shows respondents falsified documents,” he said, adding that the complaint should have considered the Commission on Audit's final report on the notice of disallowances.
Rep. Terry Ridon (Bicol Saro Party-list) said that COA reports, whether appealable or not, “cannot prevent impeachment proceedings” as they help demonstrate the “nexus” of how the funds were used.
Madriaga’s affidavit
Rodriguez, meanwhile, argued throughout the hearing that allegations of plunder, malversation, and graft must meet the legal criteria to hold up. Instead, he said the allegation of conspiracy to commit these acts would better fit the facts cited in the complaint.
What Rodriguez believed had substance, however, was the allegation of betrayal of public trust, as it is supported by a recital of facts.
Rep. Joel Chua (Manila, 3rd District), who led the good government committee’s probe into Duterte’s alleged fund misuse, argued the complaint establishes Duterte’s liability as vice president.
He cited the affidavit of Ramil Madriaga, allegedly Duterte’s former aide, who claimed to have delivered the questionable P125 million in confidential funds to the vice president’s security personnel.
De Lima said the narration of factual allegations only shows how the public funds under Duterte’s watch were not spent properly, regardless of whether there is direct proof they were used for her personal benefit.
“To be clear, personal gain is not required for malversation. Even a mere mistake or improper use of allocated funds constitutes malversation,” Ridon added in a mix of English and Filipino.
Justice Committee Chair Rep. Gerville Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District) reminded the committee that the impeachment proceedings are “sui generis” or a class of its own and not a criminal or administrative one.
Alleged acts as DepEd secretary
On the second and third grounds, lawmakers who believed they lacked substance made the argument that Duterte is no longer DepEd secretary, so she should not be charged anymore for alleged acts committed during that time.
De Lima and Chua, however, countered that the vice president is the only position that does not require confirmation if appointed to a Cabinet post.
Alleged acts of betrayal of public trust are also “attached to the person and the position” and there’s no need to be strict in delineating them, De Lima added.
Suntay said there is no proof that the cash envelopes Duterte allegedly gave three DepEd officials, who received up to P50,000 per envelope, were meant to influence decisions or constitute bribery.
For De Lima, the unclear purpose of the cash envelopes given to DepEd officials is already questionable, considering the positions they held had to do with procurement or the accounting of funds.
“Is it correct for a head of office to do that — giving such monetary gifts or items to officials of a department who are not supposed to receive them?” she asked.
Death threats
There were only a few contentions among committee members with the substance of the fourth ground for impeachment, which referred to Duterte’s death threats against Marcos, the First Lady and former Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Suntay quickly defended Duterte’s speech, saying there was no “overt action” and that “common sense dictates” no killer would announce their intent to kill to the whole world.
Rep. Ysabel Zamora (San Juan, Lone District), however, said that even if the threat was a conditional one, where she said she would have Marcos killed if she were killed, the very act of engaging with an assassin amounts to betrayal of public trust.
Meanwhile, Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong (Lanao del Sur, 1st District) said that the mere fact that the death threat came from a sitting vice president who allegedly hired an assassin constitutes a betrayal of public trust.
Rep. Janice Degamo (Negors Oriental, 3rd District) shared the same view, citing the death of her husband, former governor Roel Degamo, who had received conditional threats. She said that even conditional threats “can turn into actual harm.”
“That is why in impeachment terms, such conditional threats are considered sufficient in substance. It’s not just the wording that matters, it’s the effect and potential for harm,” she said.
Unexplained wealth, destabilization
The same lawmakers who challenged most of the charges also questioned the substance of the last two allegations, concerning Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth and efforts to destabilize the country.
Rodriguez argued that Duterte’s actions — declaring herself a designated survivor in the 2024 SONA, attending prayer rallies where speakers urged the military to rebel, and saying she imagined decapitating Marcos — do not amount to culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust, as they express desire, not clear threats.
Suntay agreed with Rodriguez, even citing an example the committee found inappropriate. He argued that people should not be sued for their imagination, recalling an instance when he saw a female celebrity at a hotel, had developed a “desire” and “imagined” what could happen, but did nothing, saying he should not be held liable for such thoughts.
The committee had his remarks stricken from the official record.
Lawmakers also questioned whether the complaint includes bank records to prove Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth and failure to declare assets.
They further challenged the charge, saying the Supreme Court could question it since the allegations cover wealth amassed as vice mayor, while an impeachable offense must occur during her current office.
De Lima said Duterte’s wealth from her time as vice mayor and mayor in Davao City is relevant to her vice presidency, as it is allegedly part of a “scheme” to amass ill-gotten wealth and helps show the contrast in her income and assets before and after assuming the vice presidency.
She added that evidence could be subpoenaed from the appropriate agencies during the investigation, but maintained that official records of former Sen. Antonio Trillanes’ testimony on the unexplained wealth are sufficient to establish the factual allegations.
The minority lawmaker further stressed that the fifth and sixth grounds for impeachment are necessary to determine Duterte’s fitness to lead and continue serving as vice president.
The justice committee will continue its hearings on Wednesday, March 4, to deliberate on the grounds cited in the fourth complaint before voting on each complaint’s sufficiency in substance.
