Duterte’s Camp Demands Impeachment Dismissal

Vice President Sara Duterte

Duterte’s Camp Demands Impeachment Dismissal

By Bing Jabadan – TheNATIONWEEK.com | March 17, 2026

MANILA, Philippines – Vice President Sara Duterte has launched a forceful counter-offensive against impeachment complaints, submitting a “Consolidated Answer Ad Cautelam” to the House Committee on Justice.

In a high-stakes legal maneuver, her defense, led by Atty. Michael Poa, strategically sidesteps the substantive allegations, instead leveling a powerful challenge against the constitutionality and procedural integrity of the entire impeachment process.

The Vice President’s response, filed precisely on the March 16 deadline, pivots on a critical claim of “flagrant due process violations.” 

Atty. Poa articulated this core argument, stating, “We raised due process issues because, in our view, the standards for determining sufficiency in form and substance were not uniformly applied in the impeachment complaints against our President and the impeachment complaints against our Vice President.”

This assertion suggests a dangerous double standard by the House Committee, implying a systemic flaw that fundamentally undermines the fairness and legitimacy of the proceedings.

A pivotal aspect of the Duterte defense strategy is the assertion that there is “no need” to address the specific allegations at this stage.

By prioritizing what they term “egregious procedural deficiencies,” the Vice President’s camp argues that the complaints lacked sufficient initial evidence to warrant a substantive response.

This stance brands the ongoing investigation as a “fishing expedition,” a characterization amplified by criticism aimed at Representative Chel Diokno’s requests for subpoenas to gather further documentation. 

According to the defense, such requests inherently expose the complaints’ initial evidentiary weakness.

The Vice President has consistently and vehemently framed the impeachment efforts as a “blatant political attack” engineered to advance “personal and foreign interests,” rather than a genuine pursuit of accountability.

This narrative underpins her legal team’s procedural challenge, portraying the complaints as politically motivated and devoid of a solid factual foundation.

Key Pillars of the Defense Strategy:

Due Process Violation

The bedrock of the defense rests on the argument that the House Committee on Justice failed to apply consistent and uniform standards in determining the “sufficiency in substance” of the impeachment complaints, thereby violating the Vice President’s fundamental constitutional right to due process.

“No Need” to Address Substantive Allegations

By laser-focusing on alleged procedural irregularities and the “fishing expedition” nature of the investigation, the defense maintains that the accusations – including those pertaining to the alleged misuse of confidential funds, bribery, and threats against high-ranking officials – do not warrant a direct response given the perceived fundamental flaws in the process itself.

“Fishing Expedition” Argument

 The defense contends that the ongoing efforts to gather more evidence, particularly through subpoena requests, validate their assertion that the complaints were filed without sufficient initial backing, amounting to a speculative search for wrongdoing.

Reiteration of Political Persecution

 The Vice President’s camp reasserts her long-held belief that the impeachment proceedings are driven by political adversaries and ulterior motives, rather than a legitimate pursuit of justice.

Contextual Developments Fueling This Standoff

This formal submission follows months of intense speculation and political maneuvering. The complaints, filed in December 2024 and early 2025, encompass a range of serious allegations, including:

• Misuse of confidential funds within both the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).
• Allegations of bribery involving public officials.
• Assertions of threats made against high-ranking government figures.

Crucially, this current process unfolds against the backdrop of a previous Supreme Court ruling in July 2025 that unequivocally declared an earlier impeachment effort against the Vice President “unconstitutional” and void. 

That ruling cited violations of the one-year ban on filing multiple impeachment complaints and fundamental due process principles. 

This powerful precedent undoubtedly informs the Vice President’s current legal strategy, emphasizing meticulous procedural adherence.

Vice President Sara Duterte’s “Consolidated Answer Ad Cautelam” marks a pivotal juncture in the unfolding impeachment saga. 

By meticulously dissecting the procedural aspects and asserting a violation of due process, her legal team aims to dismantle the complaints on constitutional grounds before their substantive merits can be fully scrutinized. 

The coming weeks will reveal whether the House Committee on Justice will accept this profound procedural challenge or push forward with an examination of the allegations themselves, thereby setting a critical precedent for future impeachment proceedings and the rule of law in the Philippines.

A Nation’s Cry Against Perceived Kleptocracy and Hypocrisy

In a nation grappling with persistent poverty, the public observes the impeachment proceedings with a critical eye, questioning the motives of those in power. 

A prevalent sentiment suggests that an “arrogance of intellect” pervades political circles – a dangerous delusion held by some in expensive suits and prestigious university degrees who believe they are above the law and beyond accountability, using their positions not to serve the impoverished populace but to safeguard personal interests.

Ordinary citizens voice a stark contrast: “Why are they so intent on impeaching VP Sara over intelligence funds, yet seemingly dismiss an impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who is implicated in alleged massive, systemic corruption involving billions in kickbacks from flood control ‘ghost projects’?”

This perceived discrepancy fuels public frustration, leading even the uneducated to discern a clear distinction between those seen as genuine public servants and those suspected of being “kleptocrats” hiding behind legislative power. 

The question reverberates: is this a true pursuit of justice, or a politically motivated attempt to eliminate a formidable rival for the 2028 presidential election, driven by an agenda that prioritizes personal gain over national well-being?