House panel officially orders VP Sara Duterte to answer impeachment raps

The House justice panel on Thursday officially ordered Vice President Sara Duterte to answer allegations of impeachable offenses against her.

This developed after the House committee served notice directing the Vice President to respond to the two verified impeachment complaints it found sufficient in form and substance.

In a Notice to Respondent dated March 4, 2026 addressed to the Office of the Vice President at Cybergate Plaza in Mandaluyong City, the committee ordered Duterte to submit her verified answer “within a non-extendible period of 10 calendar days” from receipt of the notice and to serve a copy of her Verified Answer to complainants within the same period as required under Section 6 of the House rules.

The document was signed by House committee on justice chairperson and Batangas Second District Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro.

In a statement, Atty. Michael Poa, Duterte's legal counsel, said they have received the notice.

"We acknowledge receipt of the notice served today. At this point, we see no need to issue any further comment," he said.

TIMELINE: Impeachment proceedings vs. Vice President Sara Duterte

The impeachment complaints mainly accuse the Vice President of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, among others, over the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential fund, and threat to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and his family, including her supposed desire to remove the head of the Chief Executive.

There were 54 lawmakers who voted in favor of finding the impeachment complaints against the Vice President sufficient in substance, saying that she clearly committed impeachable offenses.

One of those who voted in favor, Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno, said the Vice President’s actions as a Department of Education Secretary do not make her less of an impeachable official.

Diokno was responding to argument of Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez that the Vice President’s alleged bribery of Department of Education officials are not impeachable offenses because an Education Secretary is not an impeachable official.

“If we carry that argument to its logical conclusion, it would mean, for example, that if a Vice President were to attend a function as Secretary of Education where the President was also present, and then, let’s say, hypothetically, were to brandish a firearm or even discharge it at the President, then does that mean that she cannot be impeached?” Diokno said.

 ACT Party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio agreed.

 “We are not impeaching the DepEd Secretary which would be absurd, but the Vice President carrying out her function as a member of the Cabinet as provided for in the Constitution as DepEd Secretary,” Tinio said. 

House justice panel chairperson Luistro, for her part, argued that  public trust is indivisibe.

 “You cannot divide accountability depending on which title is convenient. The Constitution speaks to the office—not the label,” she said.

 Further, Luistro said that a threat from high-ranking officials are never just an imagination.

 “Threats from high office are never just imagination. They carry weight. They create fear. They can destabilize institutions,” Luistro said. 

 ML Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, one of the endorsers of the impeachment complaints, said the Vice President’s refusal to take back her threats is a clear impeachable offense.

“The core ultimate fact alleged here is that instead of resorting to lawful remedies, she contracted an assassin to kill the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker,” de Lima, a former Justice chief, said. — AOL/RSJ, GMA Integrated News