Sara Duterte calls impeachment case 'scrap of paper', pleads not guilty

MANILA —Vice President Sara Duterte has entered a “not guilty” plea in the impeachment case against her, and sought the dismissal of the complaint. 

In her Answer Ad Cautelam, Duterte said the impeachment complaint filed by the House of Representatives violated the Constitutional provision, which prohibits more than one impeachment complaint to be initiated against an impeachable official within a period of one year.

She claimed that there are “no statements of ultimate facts” in the impeachment complaint, calling it “nothing more than a scrap of paper”, and a “clear abuse of the impeachment process”.

Duterte also denied the evidence attached to the complaint saying they are “false, misleading, impertinent, and mere conclusions of fact and law”.

NO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?

Her camp asserted that currently, there are no Articles of Impeachment with the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, after it ordered the return of the articles to the lower chamber last June 10, until it complies with two requirements.

Duterte added there were no articles exhibited and presented by the prosecution before the Court, as supposedly required in the Senate Rules.

“Considering that the Articles of Impeachment were referred back to the HOR, there should be no reason for the issuance of Summons to compel the Vice President to answer the charges contained therein. Thus, the Vice President cannot be compelled to answer allegations in Articles of Impeachment that had been ordered returned to its source,” her Answer Ad Cautelam read.
“…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,” it added.

House impeachment prosecutors previously said the two requirements given by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court have no basis in the Constitution, as the lower chamber deferred acceptance of the articles, which the court ordered returned.

LACK OF JURISDICTION?

Duterte said the Impeachment Court lacks jurisdiction over the complaint, saying the Senate of the 19th Congress “had officially bowed out on June 11, 2025 when its session was adjourned sine die”.

She argued that the Senate is not a continuing body, and matters or proceedings taken up by the Senate are “considered terminated upon the expiration of that Congress”.

“There is also no provision in the 1987 Constitution that allows for an impeachment trial to cross from one Senate to another,” Duterte’s Answer Ad Cautelam stated.

“…the proceedings of this case should be dismissed outright as these cannot cross-over to the Senate of the 20h Congress,” it added.

NO ULTIMATE FACTS?

Duterte’s camp said the allegation in the first article of impeachment, that the Vice President contacted an assassin to plot the killing of the President, the First Lady. and the House Speaker “rely heavily on conclusions derived by the 19th HOR from an online broadcast”, and “does not offer any proof” that the Vice President entered into a contract to kill.

Regarding allegations of confidential fund misuse in the second article, Duterte said an appeal that challenges the Commission on Audit’s disallowance of the disbursements remains pending, and there is no final decision declaring the disbursements illegal and/or unjustifiable.

“The 19th HOR misrepresented the COA’s disallowance,” her Answer Ad Cautelam stated.

The House of Representatives also “failed to show with evidence” that the money distributed as monetary gifts to Department of Education officials indeed came from the Vice President or that she committed acts of bribery in exchange for some consideration, according to Duterte.

The Vice President tagged as “hearsay” and “unreliable” the assertion in the fourth article that she owns undisclosed bank accounts.

On the allegation of committing murder and conspiracy to commit murder for supposedly being part of extrajudicial killings, Duterte said they rest on the “uncorroborated and questionable” testimony of former police officer Arturo Lascañas, and “unsupported by evidence”.

Article six, which accuses the Vice President of committing acts of political destabilization, only “seeks to punish her for voicing dissent against the President, the First Lady and the current administration,” according to Duterte’s Answer Ad Cautelam.

“It merely is indicative of the 19th HOR’s dislike of the Voice President and her family,” it stated.

Article seven “does not contain any factual declarations purporting to constitute any impeachable offense”, according to Duterte.