Ridon: VP Sara Duterte impeachment interest will pick up after ban

Members of the House will only prioritize the issue of the possible filing of a new impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte on or after February 6 or when a new impeachment complaint can be legally filed again, House public accounts panel chairperson Terry Ridon of Bicol Saro party-list said.

“I think the appetite for [filing an] impeachment [against the Vice President], of course there is low appetite at this point because the impeachment complaint has not been filed,” Ridon said during a Kapihan forum.

“But I'm quite certain, when the impeachment complaint is filed by February 6 or down the dates, I would think the House members will prioritize what action to take on the impeachment because it’s something that Congress will have to resolve ultimately. They have to either approve it or reject it,” he added.

Since Congress is on break, House members are focused on their constituency work, Ridon said.

“At this point, they are in their districts. Hopefully, by February 6th or as soon as we return, we can discuss it again,” he said.

House Deputy Minority Leader Antonio Tinio of ACT Teachers party-list earlier told reporters that filing a new impeachment complaint against the Vice President should not be ruled out because accountability should not depend on political convenience or the stature of other personalities allegedly involved in separate controversies.

In addition, Tinio said that the gravity of the accusations against the Vice President demands a full investigation and possible prosecution.

“Kung kinurakot ’yan, dapat panagutan,” Tinio said.

(If public funds were stolen, then somebody should be accountable.)

The Articles of Impeachment filed by the House of Representatives against the Vice President on February 5, 2025 were:

• conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. First Lady Liza Marcos, and then-Speaker Martin Romualdez;
• malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds with questionable liquidation documents;
• bribery and corruption in the Department of Education during Duterte’s tenure by handing out cash to former DepEd Undersecretary Gloria Jumamil-Mercado (Procurement Head), Bids and Awards Committee Member Resty Osias, DepEd Chief Accountant Rhunna Catalan and Special Disbursing Officer Edward Fajarda;
• unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets in the Vice President’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, where her wealth increased by four times from 2007 from 2017;
• involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City;
• destabilization, insurrection, and public disorder efforts, which include: boycotting the State of the Nation Address (SONA) while declaring herself "designated survivor," leading rallies calling for Marcos' resignation, obstructing congressional investigations by ordering subordinates not to comply with subpoenas, threatening bodily harm against the First Couple and Romualdez, among others; and
• the totality of the Vice President’s conduct as the second highest official of the land.

The Vice President, however, has consistently said that she is innocent, and that the charges were grounded on political motives.

Last July, the Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment case was illegal, saying it violated the one-year bar rule, and that the House of Representatives violated her right to due process because it did not follow a number of rules.

These new rules, which did not exist at the time that the House filed the impeachment complaint vs. the Vice President, include:

• the Articles of Impeachment or Resolution must include evidence when shared with the House members, especially those who are considering its endorsement.
• the evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the Articles of Impeachment.
• the Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence should be available to all members of the House of Representatives, not only to those who are being considered to endorse.
• the respondent in the impeachment complaint should have been given a chance to be heard on the Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence to prove the charges prior to its transmittal to the Senate, despite the number of endorsements from House members.
• the House of Representatives must be given reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether or not they will endorse an impeachment complaint. However, the Supreme Court has the power to review whether this period is sufficient. The petitioner who invokes the Supreme Court's power to review should prove that officials failed to perform their duties properly.
• the basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. For the President and Vice President, these acts must be sufficiently grave amounting to the crimes described in Article XI Section 2, or the Trail of Public Trust given by the majority of the electorate. For the other impeachable officers, the acts must be sufficiently grave that they undermine and outweigh the respect for their constitutional independence and autonomy.
• the House of Representatives is required to provide a copy of the Articles of Impeachment and its accompanying evidence to the respondent to give him/her an opportunity to respond within a reasonable period to be determined by the House rule and to make the Articles of Impeachment, with its accompanying evidence and the comment of the respondent, available to all the members of the House of Representatives.

— BM, GMA Integrated News