Jamaine Punzalan

Vice President Sara Duterte announces her intention to run for the presidency in the 2028 national elections during a press conference at the Office of the Vice President (OVP) headquarters in Mandaluyong City on Wednesday, February 18, 2026. Duterte outlines her priorities, including governance reforms, public service continuity, and national development. Maria Tan, ABS-CBN News

Article (news)

VP SARA DUTERTE

Vivienne Gulla

ABS-CBN News

<div><span class="fr-img-caption fr-fic fr-dib" style="width:960px;display:block" width="960"><span class="fr-img-wrap"><img src="https://od2-image-api.abs-cbn.com/prod/editorImage/177242537792920260218-vp-sara-duterte-presidency-MT6.jpg" style="width:960px" class="fr-fic fr-dib" width="960"/><span class="fr-inner" style="text-align:left">Vice President Sara Duterte announces her intention to run for the presidency in the 2028 national elections during a press conference at the Office of the Vice President (OVP) headquarters in Mandaluyong City on Wednesday, February 18, 2026. Maria Tan, ABS-CBN News </span></span></span></div><p>MANILA — The House Committee on Justice on Monday found two impeachment complaints filed against Vice President Sara Duterte “sufficient in form”, which meant they met the technical requirements and “comply” with the one-year bar rule. </p><p>Among the House panel’s considerations were whether the complaints were “signed”, “properly verified”, “properly endorsed” by a House member, “included in the order of business within 10 session days and referred to the proper committee within three session days”, and “compliant with procedural formatting and jurisdictional requirements”.</p><p>During its deliberations on Monday, no House committee member objected to the motion seeking to declare “sufficient in form” the complaint filed by Fr. Joel Saballa et al. and endorsed by ML party-list Rep. Leila de Lima on February 9, as well as the complaint filed by lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera, which was endorsed by House Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega and Manila Sixth District Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. last February 18.</p><p>The complaints accused the Vice President of alleged culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. Among the grounds they cited were the alleged misuse of confidential funds, alleged bribery of officials from the Department of Education, alleged unexplained wealth and material non-disclosure in her SALN, and the alleged contracting of an assassin supposedly to kill the President, the First Lady and the former House Speaker.</p><p>“As to the opinion of some people that there are no smoking guns in this and other complaints, I beg to disagree, Madam Chair. The video containing the Vice President&#x27;s threat to kill the President, the First Lady, and then House Speaker, as well as the media interview where she affirmed it is a smoking gun. The numerous documents evidencing payments or the debts with fictitious names are smoking guns,” De Lima said. </p><p>“Saballah et al.&#x27;s complaint is replete with many other documentary evidence which are also smoking guns... We will produce them in the form of compelling testimonies and newly discovered material evidence, one more time with feelings, as the lyrics of a song go,” she said.</p><p>“If we remain silent in the face of serious allegations against one of the highest officials of the land, then we are not neutral. We are negligent. This hearing is not about personalities. It is about principle. It is not about ambition. It is about accountability. It is not about 2028. It is about 1987—the Constitution that binds us all,” Abante added.</p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/2/28/vp-duterte-s-planned-presidential-run-irrelevant-in-impeachment-proceedings-ridon-1501">VP Duterte&#x27;s planned presidential run &#x27;irrelevant&#x27; in impeachment proceedings: Ridon</a></div><div><iframe width="1023" height="575" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CDSPslfxjjE" title="LIVE: House conducts initial consideration of complaints for impeachment vs. VP Sara Duterte" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div><div><strong>SET ASIDE</strong></div><p>The House panel, meanwhile, “set aside” the first impeachment complaint filed against Duterte by progressive group members and endorsed by Makabayan congressmen for violation of the one-year bar rule. </p><p>Twenty-two members of the House panel voted in favor of a motion to set it aside. Only 10 voted against it, and no one abstained.</p><p>“By ‘set aside’, it means that it will no longer be included in the proceedings of this committee,” House Committee on Justice Chairperson Gerville Luistro said.</p><p>The first complaint’s endorser, ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio “vehemently objected” to the motion, asserting that the impeachment proceeding against the Vice President was initiated “well after” the one-year ban.</p><p>The Supreme Court, in its July 25, 2025 ruling, said no impeachment proceedings may be “commenced” at the House of Representatives against Duterte “earlier than February 6, 2026.” </p><p>Tinio stressed that while their complaint was filed in February 2, 2026, under House Rules, a complaint is only considered “initiated” when it is “referred” by the House plenary to the House Committee on Justice, which happened last February 23, 2026.</p><p>“The one-year bar applies to an impeachment proceeding, not the filing of a complaint. Nagtataka lang tayo bakit nadagdagan ng mga kailangan i-determine ng committee na ito at this point, when the rules are very clear, we only have to deliberate whether or not the complaints are verified and whether endorsed by a member of the House,” he said.</p><p>“Bakit ginagawang issue ang hindi naman issue? The Constitution, ‘yan ang pinakamataas, ang barred for one year is the initiation of an impeachment proceeding, not the filing of a complaint. The filing of a complaint does not initiate a proceeding,” Tinio argued. </p><p>House Committee on Justice Vice Chairperson and Bukidnon Second District Representative Jonathan Keith Flores replied that “it would be useless for us to consider any impeachment complaint that was filed within the one-year bar period.” </p><p>But De Lima backed Makabayan’s position, saying the February 28, 2026 Supreme Court decision effectively “recalibrated” and “moved” the point at which the one-year period begins from February 6, the date mentioned in the prior ruling, to January 21.</p><p>“Iniba kasi nila ‘yung interpretation ng session days. The earlier 2025 ruling’s point of reckoning shifts from February 6 to January 21… January 14 was the inclusion in the Order of Business. But the referral was January 21… The one-year bar would expire by January 21,” De Lima said. </p><p>“Hindi po kasalanan ng complainants that they relied on the latest redefinition, reinterpretation by the Supreme Court, which was also made the basis of denying the motion for reconsideration. It would be fundamentally unfair kung ia-apply pa rin natin o ang ii-insist pa rin natin is the original date of February 6th. It has been moved! It is the Supreme Court itself that recalibrated everything about the definition of session days. Napaaga ‘yung reckoning point,” she added.</p><div><iframe width="1023" height="575" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uNgyv15ALuU" title="ICYMI: Supreme Court&#x27;s explanation of decision on Sara Duterte impeachment case | ABS-CBN News" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div><p>But some lawmakers chose to err on the side of caution.</p><p>“Gusto lang po natin mag-ingat. Lest, ganoon na naman po ang mangyayari. After what happened in the last impeachment complaint. Baka mamaya, wala na naman pong mangyari rito by sheer technicality,” Manila Third District Rep. and former House impeachment prosecutor Joel Chua said.</p><p>“Ang sinasabi rito filing ‘and’ referral. Ibig sabihin po noon, hindi natin pwedeng i-consider ‘yung isa, nang wala ang isa,” he added.</p><p>But Tinio urged the committee: “Huwag po tayong matakot sa sarili natin anino. Panghawakan po natin ang sariling rules ng House on impeachment.”  </p><p>Flores responded that “in rules of statutory construction… what is expressed puts an end to what is implied.” </p><p>“Walang mention po ito sa motion for reconsideration. With that, I move that we set aside the first complaint because it was filed prior to the lapse of the one-year bar rule,” Flores said.</p><p>Tinio and de Lima objected to Flores’s motion, but they were outnumbered during the voting.</p><div><strong>WITHDRAWN</strong></div><p>The House Committee on Justice, meanwhile, accepted and approved the <a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/3/2/group-lawmakers-withdraw-2nd-impeach-raps-vs-vp-sara-to-speed-up-process-0911">withdrawal of another impeachment complaint</a> against Duterte, which was filed by Tindig Pilipinas co-convenor Kiko Aquino Dee and other members of civil society groups last February 2.</p><p>No one objected to the motion.</p><p>The second group of complainants, as well as endorsers De Lima and Akbayan party-list Rep. Percival Cendaña, sent a letter manifesting their withdrawal of the complaint “in the interest of procedural expediency” and “to obviate any needless delay or detour that may detract from the process of seeking accountability”.</p><p>They confirmed the letter during the House panel meeting on Monday.<strong> </strong></p><div><strong>IMPARTIALITY</strong></div><p>During the House panel meeting, Quezon City Fourth District Rep. Bong Suntay raised allegations that some House members supposedly received “suitcases” of cash.</p><p>“There have been allegations that some members of Congress ay nakatanggap ng envelope, nakatanggap ng maleta. Ito ay naibigay kundi sa opisina, sa townhouse… This is not an allusion to prejudge the veracity of the allegations,” Suntay said.</p><p>Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon raised a point of order, questioning the relevance of Suntay’s statement to the impeachment proceedings.</p><p>“The speech of our distinguished colleague is absolutely irrelevant to the question of sufficiency of form and substance on the matter… He’s probably accusing members of Congress, members of the House Committee on Justice of receiving payments for the implementation of their mandate in the impeachment proceedings… I think his speech is out of order,” Ridon told the panel.</p><p>Suntay replied, “He is jumping the gun. This is actually relevant in the determination of form and substance. This is relevant in determining the impartiality of this hearing. If we have nothing to fear, we just listen. If we are not being alluded, why are we so guilty?” </p><p>Luistro gave this assurance.</p><p>“You are assured of the impartiality of the justice committee,” she said.</p><p>“With all due respect, unless all your manifestations have complete relevance to the current impeachment proceedings, you’re enjoined by the Chair from proceeding to your manifestation,” Luistro added.</p><p>House Deputy Speaker Janette Garin moved to strike off from the House panel records Suntay’s manifestation, saying the allegations mentioned Were “baseless” and “not contained in an affidavit”. The motion was approved, without objections.</p><div><strong>SC DID NOT ABSOLVE </strong></div><p>In her opening statement, Luistro rectified claims that the impeachment complaints against Duterte are merely “recycled accusations already dismissed by the Supreme Court”. She asserted that the High Court neither ruled on the merits of the allegations in the articles of impeachment filed by the lower chamber against Duterte last Congress, nor did it absolve the Vice President of any wrongdoing.</p><p>“To suggest, therefore, that the allegations have already been resolved on the merits is legally incorrect. Malinaw sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema na ang naging pasya nito ay nakatuon lamang sa one-year bar rule. Isang usaping teknikal. Hindi ito paghatol sa nilalaman ng mga reklamo. Hindi ito deklarasyon na walang sala ang Bise Presidente,” Luistro said.</p><p>She also has this response to those asking whether the lower chamber is not yet tired of impeachment.</p><p>“The Constitution does not get tired. The rule of law does not get tired. Accountability does not get tired. If an impeachment complaint is filed and referred to the Committee, we must examine it,” Luistro said. </p><p>“There is no option to ignore these complaints. And as I said a while ago, we must fulfill this duty. No condition. No hesitation. Walang palusot. Hindi tayo maaaring umiwas,” she said. </p><p>The House panel chair added that impeachment is a constitutional process and “not a social media contest”.</p><p>“Hindi hashtag ang magpapasya dito. Hindi meme ang maghahatol. Hindi ito paramihan ng like,” Luistro said.</p><p>Under the Philippine constitution, an impeachment triggers a Senate trial. A guilty verdict would result in Duterte being barred from politics and sidelined from the 2028 presidential race. </p><div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/3/2/house-impeachment-proceedings-sara-duterte-0943">House begins impeachment proceedings vs Sara Duterte; Speaker says deliberations ‘not a venue for trial by publicity’</a></div><p>The same committee hearing the filings against Duterte last month<a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/2/10/house-throws-out-marcos-impeachment-bid-1657"> tossed out a pair of impeachment complaints against Marcos</a>, ruling that allegations of corruption over a scandal involving bogus flood control projects lacked substance.</p><p>Michael Wesley Poa, spokesman for Duterte&#x27;s defense team, told AFP they were closely monitoring deliberations and trusted &quot;the same standards&quot; used in the Marcos hearing would be applied. </p><div><strong> — With a report from Agence France-Presse  </strong></div><div><iframe width="1023" height="575" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z6mQsHcf2u4" title="Sara Duterte in tears in Davao as she reflects: What if I ran for mayor, not VP, in 2022?" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>

<p>The House justice committee found Monday that two impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte were sufficient in form.</p>

The House justice committee found Monday that two impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte were sufficient in form.

House panel finds two impeachment complaints against Sara Duterte ‘sufficient in form’, sets aside Makabayan filing

News

Entertainment

Lifestyle

Sports

Metro.Style

More

BINI

Sudoku

Word of the Day

Lotto

Horoscope

Nation

House panel finds two impeachment complaints against Sara Duterte ‘sufficient in form’, sets aside Makabayan filing

Vivienne Gulla,

ABS-CBN News

Published March 02, 2026 01:25 PM PHT

|

Updated March 02, 2026 03:47 PM PHT

Read More:

Sara Duterte

Duterte impeachment

impeachment

House of Representatives

ABS-CBN Newsletter

Your go-to source for the latest news, entertainment highlights, exclusive interviews, and updates on your favorite Kapamilya stars.

ABS-CBN Newsletter

Your go-to source for the latest news, entertainment highlights, exclusive interviews, and updates on your favorite Kapamilya stars.

Sign Up

I have read and agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

ABS-CBN is the leading media and entertainment company in the Philippines, offering quality content across TV, radio, digital, and film. Committed to public service and promoting Filipino values, ABS-CBN continues to inspire and connect audiences worldwide.

Corporate

Investors

Governance

International Distribution

Corporate

Governance

Investors

International Distribution

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

AI Policy

Terms of Service

Advertise with Us

© 2026 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

AI Policy

Advertise with Us

© 2026 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

AI Policy

Advertise with Us

© 2026 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.