Sara Duterte cites free speech, lack of evidence in reply to impeachment articles

The camp of Vice President Sara Duterte invoked freedom of expression, the confidentiality of bank records and Anti-Money Laundering Council reports, and the lack of sufficient evidence in answering the four articles of impeachment against her point by point.

Duterte's camp replied to the impeachment articles in a document dated May 25, 2026. It may be recalled that her defense team released only an executive summary after her camp filed its reply.

"[It] is respectfully prayed that the articles of impeachment be dismissed for the reasons cited and discussed above and for failing to meet the constitutional requirements of an impeachment proceeding," the reply document read.

It was signed by Duterte's lawyers Philip Sigfrid Fortun, Gregorio Narvasa II, Sheila Sison, and several others.

On alleged assassination plot

On the threat supposedly made in a live video in November 2024 against President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then-Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Duterte's camp said, "respondent merely exercised constitutionally protected speech in opposition to the policies, conduct, actuations, and overreach of the current administration."

“Freedom of expression is accorded with primacy and high esteem in our jurisction as it is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional systems. It applies not only to those who are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb," the reply read.

It added, "No proof was shown that the respondent actually contracted an assassin to kill the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House.”

"[There] is no threat because the respondent merely answered a reporter who asked her about a certain operation Romanov against her and her family," the reply read.

“Her response was neither a factual assertion of any factual threat nor with intent to do harm,” it added.

It added that there was also no proof that “the respondent actually contracted an assassin to kill the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House.”

Article IV of the Impeachment Complaint alleged that Duterte’s statement, including the ones in the past, called for the removal of the President and destabilization of the government.

“Respondent’s pattern of public utterances and conduct, punctuated by a repeated use of violent language and intimidating demeanor, tends to undermine the safety of the President, as well as the peace and order of the country, and cause the destabilization of the government she has sworn to protect,” the Article read.

On alleged misuse of confidential funds

In denying that Duterte misused and misappropriated more than P600 million in confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and Department of Education (DepEd), her camp cast doubt on witness Ramil Madriaga, a supposed former close aide who said he delivered cash in Laguna and Quezon City.

"Madriaga admitted himself that he bears a grudge against the respondent for supposedly failing to come to his aid in relation to the kidnapping for ransom case that he is now detained for," the reply read.

“Neither is there any personal gain which accrued in favor of the respondent. There is a complete absence of any allegations in the Articles, much less proof, that respondent appropriated the confidential funds for her own benefit," it added.

Madriaga executed a sworn statement dated November 29, 2025, and a supplemental affidavit dated April 11, 2026, stating that Duterte personally instructed him to deliver OVP confidential funds to various locations in Laguna and Quezon City, and asserted that the funds were, in fact, disbursed in less than 24 hours, contrary to reports indicating 11 days.

Duterte's camp also said that the Notice of Disallowances issued by the Commission on Audit (COA), as regards the confidential funds, were not yet final.

“Even the purported documentary evidence used by the prosecutors to support this alleged impeachment offense point to regular release and utilization of confidential funds," the reply read.

“The entirety of the said Article rests solely upon Notices of Disallowances issued by the Commission on Audit, which are not yet final. Thus, any allegation premised on these NDs cannot be made to support a culpable violation of the Constitution," it added.

Duterte’s camp asserted that the confidential funds were “lawfully obtained upon the recommendation of the Department of Budget and Management and approval of the Office of the President,” and there was no proof that she pocketed the monies.

“Neither is there any personal gain which accrued in favor of the respondent. There is a complete absence of any allegations in the Articles, much less proof, that the respondent appropriated the confidential funds for her own benefit,” the Answer said.

In Article I, prosecutors alleged that the COA issued at least three Notices of Disallowance relating to the fund.

On alleged unexplained wealth

Concerning the allegation of amassing ill-gotten wealth, Duterte’s camp said some evidence relied on by the prosecution was inadmissible in court, particularly the testimony and pieces of evidence submitted by former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and records from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC)

“Neither can the false claims of former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV be given any probative value … The documents obtained by Trillanes, assuming they even exist and are reliable (which is denied), violate the confidentiality of bank deposits under the Bank Secrecy Law and are therefore inadmissible,” the reply read.

Prosecutors had alleged that Duterte and her husband, Atty. Manases Carpio’s net worth grew from P7.25 million in 2007 to P88.5 million in 2024.

Prosecutors had added that the AMLC had flagged a total amount of at least P6.7 billion coming in and going out of the spouses’ bank account from 2007 to 2024, with Trillanes saying a significant portion of this was sourced from illegal activities such as the illegal drugs trade.

“The AMLC flagged a total amount of at least P 6.7 billion as covered or suspicious transactions; of this aggregate amount, around P 4.4 billion was identified as inflow transactions and roughly P 1.5 billion was identified as outflow transactions,” the article read.

But Duterte’s camp said the Vice President was never investigated by the AMLC, adding that the disclosure of the report was illegal.

Her counsel said she would challenge it at the proper time.

"[The] disclosure by the AMLC of these supposed data is prohibited under the law, the respondent maintains her objection to the use of those reports and reserves her right to challenge it at a proper time,” the reply read.

On alleged bribery and graft

Duterte also denied committing bribery when she was concurrently head of the Education Department, saying the prosecution has no witnesses to support the allegation.

Duterte’s counsel said there was no showing that the money came from Duterte herself to influence her department’s procurement processes.

“[The] Articles failed to substantiate the accusation that the money came from the respondent or that the latter committed acts of bribery in exchange for some consideration by reason of their office, or in consideration of a promise of doing something in return, or to influence the DepEd’s procurement process. In fact, records show that no such witness confirmed these accusations,” the answer said.

The prosecution alleged that at least three department officers were given envelopes of cash containing amounts ranging from P12,000 to P50,000, allegedly by DepEd Asst. Secretary Sunshine Fajardo at Duterte’s behest.

The impeachment trial against Duterte is slated to start on July 6.

It will be the country’s third impeachment trial, following those against former President Joseph Estrada in 2001 and former Supreme Court Chief Justice Corona in 2012. –NB, GMA News