1 day ago
6
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
Delon Porcalla - The Philippine Star
March 3, 2026 | 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines — Two of the four impeachment complaints filed against Vice President Sara Duterte were deemed sufficient in form yesterday by the House of Representatives committee on justice while one was “set aside” for violating the one year rule and the other formally withdrawn by complainants supposedly to help expedite the impeachment process.
Members of the committee chaired by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro voted “unanimously” to declare the third and fourth impeachment complaints filed by Fr. Joel Saballa and lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera, respectively, “sufficient in form.”
The committee meets today and tomorrow to discuss whether the two complaints are sufficient in substance.
“We will simply continue to monitor the proceedings and provide comments if and when necessary,” said Michael Poa, spokesman for Duterte’s legal team, when asked to comment on the development.
The committee also voted 22-10 to “set aside” the first impeachment complaint lodged by the Makabayan bloc led by complainants France Castro and Neri Colmenares, on the ground that it was filed last Feb. 2 – or four days prior to the Feb. 6 lifting of the one-year prohibition set by the Supreme Court.
The second complaint filed by civil society Tindig Pilipinas led by co-convenor Francis Joseph Aquino-Dee – grandson of democracy icons Ninoy and Cory Aquino – was formally withdrawn by the 16 complainants yesterday to “make the process towards accountability more expedient.
“We also would not want to provide any opportunity to VP Duterte’s camp to question the schedule by which we have filed the complaint,” they stated in their two-page letter to Luistro.
They explained that for all intents and purposes – the “contents and import” of the third complaint filed by Saballa et al – are “very similar to the second complaint” that they filed.
Thus, they said it would be best for them to back out, but at the same time stay engaged as they push for accountability.
“Regardless of the vehicle, we remain onboard in this pursuit of justice, good governance and accountability,” Dee said in the letter, which was also signed by Fr. Robert Reyes, former peace secretary Teresita Deles and former congressman Teddy Baguilat. “We believe it is most prudent to withdraw the complaint.”
Lawmaker-endorsers Reps. Percival Cendana (Akbayan party-list) and Leila de Lima (Mamamayang Liberal party-list) likewise manifested their decision to withdraw their endorsement.
“Complainants have decided to formally withdraw their complaint in the interest of procedural expediency and to obviate any needless delay or detour that may detract from the process of seeking accountability. We decided that withdrawal is the best course of action,” they said.
“We manifest our support for the third impeachment complaint filed by Fr. Saballa et al.”
The Luistro panel then approved the motion to withdraw the second impeachment complaint.
“In the presence of the members of the committee on justice and the Filipino people who are watching right now, Mr. Dee, on behalf of all the complainants, is confirming the letter withdrawing their impeachment complaint,” Luistro said.
Dismayed
One of the endorsers of the Makabayan complaint, House Deputy Minority Leader and ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio expressed dismay over the decision of the justice committee to set aside their complaint.
“We are dismayed because it seems the House did not learn from its experience in the last Congress,” Tinio said in Filipino during an interview with “Storycon” on One News yesterday.
“The House is still failing to take ownership of its own rules and its own constitutional mandate as the sole institution responsible for impeachment,” he added.
Tinio argued that the second Supreme Court ruling, which denied the motion of reconsideration on its earlier decision declaring Duterte’s impeachment as unconstitutional, set the timeline as to when the one-year bar rule expires.
The lawmaker said he could “think of any number or reasons already for questioning the proceedings already,” such as whether the setting aside of their complaint may already constitute initiation or commencement of an impeachment complaint.
“The Vice President will still go to the Supreme Court, whatever the outcome of this process,” said Tinio.
“What we want is for Congress – both the House and the Senate – to take a strong position that this is ours. When it comes to impeachment, we make the rules, we decide on the rules,” he added.
Call for vigilance
Meanwhile, the ACT called on the public to stay vigilant as the House of Representatives begins deliberating on the impeachment complaint against the Vice President.
“The Filipino people have reason to remain vigilant. This is the same institution that previously terminated impeachment complaints against President Marcos without allowing a full and transparent process to unfold. That experience reminds us that accountability cannot rely solely on congressional mechanisms,” ACT chairperson Ruby Bernardo said.
“Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism, but history shows it moves only when pushed by an organized and watchful citizenry. The people must ensure that this process is not reduced to political maneuvering or selective accountability,” she said.
The teachers’ group maintained that Vice President Duterte must definitely be held accountable.
“The start of deliberations is not yet justice – but it is an opening created by sustained public pressure. Whether billions or even a single peso of public funds are involved, every peso taken from the people must be investigated, accounted for, and those responsible must be held liable,” it said.
It added that the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on earlier impeachment attempts do not constitute absolution from accountability, as legal technicalities cannot erase unresolved questions surrounding the reported confidential funds, including the still-unexplained P615 million allocation handled by Duterte’s offices. — Janvic Mateo, Evelyn Macairan
