MANILA — A coalition of religious leaders and legal scholars on Monday filed a third formal impeachment complaint in as many weeks against Vice President Sara Duterte, escalating a constitutional confrontation that now threatens to permanently fracture the political alliance that once defined Philippine power.
The 98-page petition, submitted to the House of Representatives by prominent Catholic and Protestant clergy alongside members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, was filed just days after the lapse of the Constitution’s one-year bar on impeachment proceedings. The timing, as much as the substance, underscored a coordinated and increasingly assertive effort by civil society actors and opposition figures to challenge the Vice President’s tenure.
Coming on the heels of two similar complaints filed last week, the new petition signals that the impeachment drive has moved beyond symbolic protest into a sustained legal campaign. Petitioners framed their action as a matter of constitutional duty, arguing that the alleged misconduct at issue—particularly involving public funds—could no longer be addressed through ordinary political debate.
Taken together, the filings mark the definitive collapse of the “UniTeam” coalition that swept the 2022 national elections, uniting the Marcos and Duterte political dynasties in a landslide victory. What was once portrayed as a stabilizing alliance has now devolved into open institutional conflict, with the House of Representatives emerging as the principal arena of confrontation. Political analysts say the outcome could shape the balance of power well ahead of the 2028 presidential race, in which Ms. Duterte had long been viewed as a presumptive frontrunner.
The third complaint, formally endorsed by Representative Leila de Lima, the House Deputy Minority Leader and a long-time critic of the Duterte family, accuses the Vice President of culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. The petition consolidates allegations raised in earlier filings while adding new claims intended to strengthen the case for impeachment.
Central to the complaint is the alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million, roughly $10.9 million, in confidential and intelligence funds. According to the petitioners, ₱500 million was allocated to the Office of the Vice President in 2023, while ₱112.5 million was disbursed during Ms. Duterte’s brief tenure as Secretary of Education. The complaint asserts that these funds were either improperly liquidated or supported by documentation that auditors deemed implausible or inconsistent with established accounting standards.
The petition further alleges that Ms. Duterte authorized the distribution of cash envelopes to certain education officials, an act the complainants characterize as bribery and an attempt to exert undue influence within the Department of Education. While the Vice President has previously denied wrongdoing and insisted that the funds were used for legitimate purposes related to national security and public safety, the petitioners argue that the absence of transparent accounting constitutes a grave abuse of public trust.
Beyond questions of fiscal propriety, the complaint expands into more severe territory by citing the Vice President’s recent public remarks regarding an alleged contract to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the First Lady, and the Speaker of the House. The petition describes the statements as reckless and destabilizing, arguing that even rhetorical references to violence against the country’s highest officials amount to a violation of constitutional norms and could constitute high crimes.
Ms. Duterte has previously dismissed those remarks as having been taken out of context, insisting they were made in a hypothetical or illustrative manner. Nonetheless, the petitioners included the comments alongside accusations of plunder, malversation of public funds, and failure to fully disclose assets and liabilities, portraying a pattern of conduct they say is incompatible with high office.
In a brief response issued shortly after the filing, Ms. Duterte reiterated that the complaints were “politically motivated” and designed to marginalize her ahead of future elections. Her legal team struck a measured tone. Michael Poa, a spokesperson and counsel for the Vice President, said the office had anticipated multiple filings and would respond through “appropriate constitutional channels.” He added that Ms. Duterte remained focused on her official duties despite what he described as persistent harassment by political opponents.
The renewed impeachment push follows a turbulent period for the Vice President. In early 2025, the House of Representatives voted to impeach her, only for the Supreme Court to later nullify the Articles of Impeachment. The High Tribunal ruled that the proceedings violated the Constitution’s one-year bar, which prohibits the initiation of more than one impeachment case against the same official within a twelve-month period. That decision temporarily halted the campaign against Ms. Duterte and reshaped the legal strategies of her critics.
With the moratorium now expired, the House has once again become the focal point of the dispute. The House Secretary General has transmitted the latest complaints to Speaker Faustino Dy III, triggering a procedural countdown under chamber rules. The Speaker has ten session days to refer the matter to the Committee on Justice, which will then evaluate whether the complaints are sufficient in both form and substance.
If the committee finds the allegations adequate, it will draft Articles of Impeachment for consideration by the full House. A favorable vote would send the case to the Senate, where an impeachment trial—part judicial proceeding, part political spectacle—would determine the Vice President’s fate.
As the process unfolds, the impeachment battle is increasingly viewed as a referendum not only on Ms. Duterte’s conduct but also on the resilience of Philippine institutions amid intensifying political polarization. Whether the House emerges as a credible arbiter of accountability or as a battleground for dynastic rivalry may prove as consequential as the verdict itself.©kuryentenews