Highlights
- Four complaints filed: Two were dismissed/withdrawn, while the third (by Rev. Fr. Joel Saballa and others) and fourth (by lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera) were deemed substantial.
- Panel ruling: The committee voted 54–1 to declare the Saballa and Cabrera complaints sufficient in substance.
- Next step: Duterte has 10 days to respond as the process advances to the pleadings stage.
Points of Debate
- Evidence sufficiency: Some lawmakers questioned whether Duterte’s alleged threats against President Marcos Jr. and others were backed by proof.
- Jurisdiction issue: Debate arose over whether actions tied to her role as Education Secretary fall under impeachment authority. The committee chair argued they do, since her Cabinet post was linked to her vice presidency.
- Accountability: Rep. Chel Diokno warned that separating her roles could allow her to evade responsibility.
MANILA, Philippines — The House Committee on Justice on Wednesday, March 4, declared two impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte sufficient in substance, allowing the proceedings to advance to the next phase.
A total of four impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte following the lapse of the one-year constitutional bar on such filings.
The first complaint, lodged by the Makabayan bloc, was dismissed after it was found to have been submitted before the official lifting of the one-year prohibition. The second complaint, endorsed by Leila de Lima (Mamamayang Liberal party-list) and Percival Cendaña (Akbayan party-list), was later withdrawn to give way to a third complaint.
The third complaint, filed by Rev. Fr. Joel Saballa and other complainants, was deemed the most substantial. A fourth complaint submitted by lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera cited similar grounds.
Debate at Justice Panel Hearing
During deliberations, several lawmakers questioned whether the complaints presented enough basis to proceed.
Bong Suntay (Quezon City) argued that one of the allegations — Duterte’s public threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez — lacked proof that any action had been carried out.
However, Bel Zamora (San Juan) maintained that the allegations were supported by evidence, citing her experience as one of the House prosecutors in a previous impeachment complaint against Duterte.
Committee chair Joel Chua (Manila) reminded members that the panel’s task at this stage was not to determine guilt, but only to assess whether the complaints contained sufficient grounds to move forward with impeachment proceedings.
Jurisdiction Question Raised
Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro) raised concerns over jurisdiction, arguing that several allegations stemmed from Duterte’s tenure as secretary of the Department of Education, which he claimed falls outside Congress’ impeachment authority.
Chua countered that Duterte’s Cabinet appointment was tied to her position as vice president. He noted that as vice president, she did not require confirmation from the Commission on Appointments to serve concurrently as education secretary.
Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno added that separating Duterte’s actions as education secretary from her role as vice president could allow her to evade accountability.
Vote and Next Steps
The justice committee voted 54–1 to declare the Saballa and Cabrera complaints sufficient in substance, with Suntay casting the lone dissenting vote.
Duterte has been given 10 days to respond as the impeachment proceedings move to the pleadings stage.
NEWS SOURCE: PhilStar Global
Photo credit: Rappler