KEY POINTS: How VP Sara formally answered impeachment case against her

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Rappler summarizes why Vice President Sara Duterte wants the complaint dismissed in her 34-page reply submitted to the impeachment court

Vice President Sara Duterte has answered the impeachment case filed against her by the House of Representatives in her filing before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court on June 23.

Rappler summarizes why she wants the complaint dismissed in her 34-page reply, excluding annexes.

1. Duterte tried to take advantage of the Senate’s decision to remand the case.

When the Senate sent back the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives a day before it adjourned sine die, critics called the move unconstitutional, and feared it may further raise uncertainties about the future of the trial.

Now, Duterte is trying to make the most out of the Senate’s move.

She said there are no impeachment articles present with the court, so she cannot be compelled to answer the allegations against her: “Without the articles of impeachment in the chamber of this court consequent to its order to return it to the House of Representatives, requiring the Vice President to answer allegations therein is tantamount to requiring an accused to answer criminal charges which the court has not yet decided to act upon or receive.”

2. Duterte said her impeachment violated the Constitution.

The Senate’s decision to return the impeachment complaint to the House was prompted by a motion by Senator Bato dela Rosa, who alleged that the lower chamber violated the Constitution in impeaching the Vice President. The Senate then ordered the House to certify that it did not circumvent the charter.

It was no surprise that Duterte echoed that claim in her answer. After all, that argument originated from her petition filed with the Supreme Court in February seeking to stop the trial.

She claimed that the House violated the Constitution’s one-year bar, which states that only one impeachment proceeding can be initiated against an official within a year.

Duterte said the articles of impeachment — listed in the fourth impeachment complaint in February this year — were void because there were three complaints lodged against her in December 2024.

“The House deliberately withheld the referral of the first three impeachment complaints to circumvent the one-year-bar rule and its own set of rules on impeachment proceedings, which explicitly require the Secretary General to immediately refer any verified complaint for impeachment to the Speaker of the House, who then shall have it included in the Order of Business within 10 session days,” the reply read.

The Office of the Solicitor General, lawyering for the House, said in March that the delay in the referral of the complaint was not tantamount to initiation, adding that none of the first three complaints were referred to the justice committee.

3. Duterte said impeachment proceedings cannot carry over to the 20th Congress.

It has been debated for months now whether the impeachment articles approved in the 19th Congress can cross over to the 20th Congress, given that bills fail to be signed into law in one Congress expire once the legislative adjourns sine die.

Pro-impeachment advocates have argued that impeachment is part of the non-legislative function of the House, which does not expire, similar to how Congresses in the past continued the canvassing of votes — a non-legislative function — even though session had ended for good.

Duterte, as expected, adopted the view that pending matters and proceedings terminate upon the expiration of a Congress.

“Given that the Senate of the 19th Congress had officially bowed out on June 11, 2025 when its session was adjourned sine die, the proceedings of this case should be dismissed outright,” Duterte said.

4. Duterte said the allegations in the impeachment articles were unsubstantiated.

The document that Duterte submitted to the impeachment court is an answer ad cautelam, which essentially means that she is responding to the complaint without admitting that the court has jurisdiction over the case, in order to protect herself.

She said the fourth impeachment complaint is a “scrap of paper” filled with “conclusions of facts and law.”

Here’s how Duterte responded to the impeachment articles:

• Article 1 (High crimes/betrayal of public trust/culpable violation of the Constitution): The House had no proof when it alleged that she contracted an assassin to plot the killing of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The House’s claim was based on her remarks in an online briefing in November 2024.
• Article 2 (Betrayal of public trust/graft and corruption): No final ruling exists on the allegation that she mishandled confidential funds. The Commission on Audit moved to disallow P73 million in her confidential funds in 2022, but it’s a ruling that is subject to appeal. During the course of congressional investigation, lawmakers discovered more than a thousand names in confidential fund receipts that were allegedly fictitious.
• Article 3 (Betrayal of public trust/bribery/graft and corruption): Allegations that she bribed Department of Education officials holding procurement-related functions lacked evidence that the monetary gifts came directly from her.
• Article 4 (Culpable violation of the Constitution/betrayal of public trust): Allegations of her unexplained wealth are based on hearsay, and she insisted it was “mystifying” for the complaint to consider former senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s supposed exposé as “gospel truth.”
• Article 5 (High crimes): Allegations of her involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao are based on “uncorroborated and questionable testimony” that was “unsupported by evidence.” She tried to cast doubt on the credibility of retired Davao police officer Arturo Lascañas, one of the original members of the Davao Death Squad. She also insisted that the purported acts took place before she became vice president, which for her are not impeachable offenses. Lascañas’ affidavit was accepted by the International Criminal Court, which is investigating her father Rodrigo Duterte’s alleged crimes against humanity.
• Article 6 (Betrayal of public trust/culpable violation of the Constitution/high crimes): The House did not specify how exactly she committed acts of political destabilization; she accused the chamber of punishing her for being critical of the Marcos administration.
• Article 7 (Betrayal of public trust/culpable violation of the Constitution/graft and corruption): This impeachment article — which seeks to hold her accountable because of the “totality of her conduct — is a “mere summation” of the House’s “layers of legal and factual conclusions.”

At the end of her complaint, Duterte pleaded not guilty “without waiving any of her jurisdictional and other objections over the charges,” and asked the court to junk the fourth impeachment complaint. – Rappler.com