TIMELINE: Impeachment proceedings vs. Vice President Sara Duterte

Vice President Sara Duterte said on January 29 that the government should “move on” after the Supreme Court affirmed its ruling that declared the articles of impeachment against her unconstitutional.

Her accusers, however, turned out to be far from done and were ready to run it back. They filed fresh impeachment complaints against her just three days after the Supreme Court announced its ruling favoring the Vice President.

February 2

The new impeachment complaints were filed on the same day, February 2. 

Members of the Makabayan coalition and allied groups filed the first impeachment complaint against Duterte for 2026, alleging that the Vice President betrayed public trust due to the following acts:

• ordering subordinates to prepare implausible accomplishment reports supported by fabricated liquidation reports and falsified documents for submission to the Commission on Audit to support the use of confidential funds; and
• dereliction of official duty with her willful refusal to recognize congressional oversight during budget deliberations and its authority to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

On the same day, civil society organization Tindig Pilipinas and others filed their own impeachment complaint against, accusing the second highest ranking public official of the land of betrayal of public trust, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and a commission of high crime over the following deeds:

• Duterte's admission, done in a public broadcast, of contracting an assassin to kill President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos and then-Speaker Martin Romualdez;
• misuse and malversation of her confidential funds as Vice President and then Department of Education Secretary;
• causing the distribution of monetary gifts to Department of Education officials holding procurement-related functions;
• massing of unexplained wealth and failure to disclose all her properties and interests in properties in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth; and
• being involved in the extrajudicial killings of the Davao Death Squad during her tenure as mayor of Davao City.

Both groups also filed separate impeachment complaints against the Vice President in November and December 2024, respectively. But this time, the groups included the November 2025 affidavit of Ramil Madriaga in their filings.

Madriaga says he is a former intelligence operative and campaign operator assigned by former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte to then-vice presidential candidate and Davao City mayor Sara Duterte. He said that he was tasked to form the Vice President Security and Protection Group (VPSPG), during which he recommended to her Army Colonel Dennis Nolasco, who in turn tapped the services of Army Colonel Raymund Dante Lachica to head the VPSPG.

Madriaga said that from July 2022 to April 2023, he worked with Nolasco and Lachica in tactical transport services, securing the Vice President and other VIPs, conveying highly confidential information, and transporting large amounts of money to several persons as instructed by the Vice President.

These allegations, the complainants said, corroborate the findings already revealed before the inquiry into the OVP’s use of its budget conducted by the House good government and public accountability in 2024 that the Vice President, and the Education department during her time as chief have been spending their confidential funds on questionable items, to say the least.

The road ahead

Both complaints filed on February 2 this year were accepted by the House Secretary General Cheloy Garafil.

Under House rules, Garafil’s office should immediately submit those verified impeachment complaints to the Office of the Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy III of Isabela.

The Speaker’s office is then mandated to calendar these complaints under the Order of Business for plenary action within 10 session days upon its receipt.

Once the impeachment complaints are referred by the House plenary to the House justice panel, the one-year ban on the filing another impeachment complaint against the Vice President is triggered.

In compliance

The chairperson of the House Justice committee, Batangas Representative Gerville Luistro, said that both impeachment complaints are compliant with the Supreme Court January 28 Resolution, even if the same High Court ruling declared the 2025 impeachment case against the Vice President illegal for violating the one year bar and violation of her rights to due process.

Luistro said the January 28 Resolution provides that the first impeachment complaint filed against the Vice President on December 2, 2024 was deemed initiated when the period of 10 session or calendar days lapsed on January 14, 2025 due to the the inaction of the House, meaning the one year ban lapsed on January 14.

"The session days [as provided in the Supreme Court Resolution] is now equivalent to calendar days when the House of Representatives has sessions. So counting from December 2, 2024, the 10 session days was until January 14 of 2025. In other words, January 15, 2026, the one-year prohibition period already lapsed," Luistro said in a press conference.

“The Supreme Court said [under its January 28 resolution] that a session day for purposes of impeachment proceedings, and the impeachment being a very important process, a session day is equivalent to a calendar day. As such, the timeline [on the reckoning of the one year bar] was adjusted by the Supreme Court. That why the filing [of new impeachment complaints against the Vice President happened last February 2] was done,” said San Juan City Representative and Justice panel vice chair Ysabel "Bel" Zamora.

SC rewriting House impeachment rules

The Supreme Court’s January 28 Resolution also stated that the Articles of Impeachment signed off by over one-third of the House members and supporting evidence must be provided to all House members, including those who did not sign off on such; the evidence must meet the required quantum of proof to establish the charges; and, the evidence must be made available to all House Members for their information and guidance in deciding on the complaint during plenary deliberations.

These three guidelines did not exist when the House impeached the Vice President on February 5, 2025. — BM, GMA Integrated News