Dated: 29th of March 2025

TO: ATTY MISHAEL ROBLES OCCIANO- ALFELOR

FROM: JULIEANN B.BASCUÑA ( Legal Assistant )
RE: VP Sara Duterte Impeachment Complaint

I wish to render my considered legal opinion over this matter as follows :

Facts :
The fourth impeachment complaint, filed and endorsed , outlined seven articles of
impeachment, citing culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and
corruption, and other high crimes, including bribery and conspiracy to commit murder.
1. Death threats
The complaint first pointed to Duterte’s death threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.,
First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and House Speaker Martin Romualdez. She allegedly claimed in
November 2024 that she had already ordered someone to kill them in case of her death.
This remark came as her chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, was detained by the lower chamber for
contempt during a congressional probe into the alleged misuse of her office’s confidential and
intelligence funds.
Lawmakers also referenced an October 2024 press conference where Duterte publicly stated
she had expressed a desire to behead Marcos at an event
“The absolute atrocity of these words cannot be mollified by the convenient excuse that these
are mere threats akin to warnings. They tantamount to high crimes, and/or betrayal of public
trust, and/or culpable violations of the 1987 Constitution,” the complaint read.
2. Alleged confidential fund misuse
The second article of impeachment accused Duterte of misusing confidential funds, amounting
to at least P254.898 million in alleged “ghost expenses.”
The House good government committee earlier investigated the P500 million spent by the Office
of the Vice President (OVP) and P112.5 million by the Department of Education (DepEd) in 2022
and 2023.
Lawmakers flagged discrepancies in the acknowledgment receipts used to justify the spending.
The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) verified that many of the listed recipients had no birth,
marriage or death records.
The complaint also cited that special disbursing officers of the OVP and DepEd admitted in a
congressional hearing that they were not the ones who personally delivered the payments.
Instead, security officers handled the funds upon Duterte’s instructions.
Another questionable transaction was the P125 million in confidential funds spent within 11
days in December 2022, including P73 million later disallowed by the Commission on Audit
(COA).
3. Cash envelopes
The third article of impeachment accused Duterte of bribing former high-ranking DepEd officials
by allegedly distributing cash envelopes containing tens of thousands of pesos.
Former DepEd procurement head Gloria Mercado testified before the House panel that she
received P50,000 in cash every month for nine months. Two other officials, former bids and
awards committee chair and chief accountant, also said they received cash envelopes.
The complaint also cited the Philippine Army’s admission that it had not received payment for
DepEd’s “youth leadership summits,” contradicting DepEd’s claim that funds were allocated for
the program.
4. Unexplained wealth

The fourth article of impeachment accused Duterte of amassing “hidden wealth” amounting to
P2 billion, which was allegedly unexplained in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
(SALN) filed from 2007 to 2012 and from 2016 to 2022.
The complaint also stated how the growth in her net worth is allegedly disproportionate to her
salary as a public official.
5. Davao Death Squad, drug war killings
The fifth article linked Duterte to extrajudicial killings during the Duterte administration’s war
on drugs, including the notorious Davao Death Squad (DDS), which is being investigated by the
International Criminal Court (ICC).
Duterte was the mayor of Davao City prior to being elected as vice president in 2022.
6. Inciting sedition, political turmoil
The sixth article accused Duterte of deliberately sowing division and discord within the
government, alleging that she incited people to sedition and rebellion.
The complaint said she “repeatedly and maliciously caused political turmoil and instability by
sowing division and discord within the government.”
7. Abuse of power
The seventh and final article claimed that Duterte’s conduct as vice president displayed “gross
faithlessness against trust and tyrannical abuse of power.”
Proceedings:
With the House voting to impeach Duterte, the case now moves to the Senate for trial.
For a conviction and removal from office, at least two-thirds of the 24-member Senate equivalent
to 16 senators must vote in favor.
If the Senate acquits Duterte, Congress will have to wait one year before initiating another
impeachment proceeding against her.
Relevant Law:
CONGRESS ARGUES THAT CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION AGAINST IT IS NOT PROPER BECAUSE
CONGRESS WAS NOT EXERCISING A JUDICIAL, QUASI JUDICIAL, OR MINISTERIAL FUNCTION. IT
WAS EXERCISING A POLITICAL ACT WHICH IS DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE. IS CONGRESS
CORRECT?
NO. IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE EXERCISE
BY CONGRESS OF A POLITICAL ACT MUST BE WITHIN STANDARDS WHICH COURT COULD SET OR
DEFINE.
These same arguments were raised in Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives. The argument
that impeachment proceedings are beyond the reach of judicial review was debunked in this
wise:
The major difference between the judicial power of the Philippine Supreme Court and that of the
U.S. Supreme Court is that while the power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to the U.S.
Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature, that granted to the Philippine Supreme Court and
lower courts, as expressly provided for in the Constitution, is not just a power but also a duty,
and it was given an expanded definition to include the power to correct any grave abuse of
discretion on the part of any government branch or instrumentality.
There are also glaring distinctions between the U.S. Constitution and the Philippine Constitution
with respect to the power of the House of Representatives over impeachment
proceedings. While the U.S. Constitution bestows sole power of impeachment to the House of
Representatives without limitation, our Constitution, though vesting in the House of
Representatives the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases, provides for several
limitations to the exercise of such power as embodied in Section 3(2), (3), (4) and (5), Article XI
thereof. These limitations include the manner of filing, required vote to impeach, and the one-
year bar on the impeachment of one and the same official.
Respondents are also of the view that judicial review of impeachments undermines their finality
and may also lead to conflicts between Congress and the judiciary. Thus, they call upon this Court
to exercise judicial statesmanship on the principle that “whenever possible, the Court should
defer to the judgment of the people expressed legislatively, recognizing full well the perils of
judicial willfulness and pride.”
But did not the people also express their will when they instituted the above-mentioned
safeguards in the Constitution? This shows that the Constitution did not intend to leave the
matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. Instead, it provided for certain well-
defined limits, or in the language of Baker v. Carr, “judicially discoverable standards” for
determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review.
There is indeed a plethora of cases in which this Court exercised the power of judicial review over
congressional action. Thus, in Santiago v. Guingona, Jr., this Court ruled that it is well within the
power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether the Senate or its officials committed a
violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of their functions and
prerogatives. In Tañada v. Angara, in seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the
ground that it contravened the Constitution, it held that the petition raises a justiciable
controversy and that when an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have
infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to
settle the dispute. In Bondoc v. Pineda, this Court declared null and void a resolution of the
House of Representatives withdrawing the nomination, and rescinding the election, of a
congressman as a member of the House Electoral Tribunal for being violative of Section 17, Article
VI of the Constitution. In Coseteng v. Mitra, it held that the resolution of whether the House
representation in the Commission on Appointments was based on proportional representation
of the political parties as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution is subject to judicial
review. In Daza v. Singson, it held that the act of the House of Representatives in removing the
petitioner from the Commission on Appointments is subject to judicial review. In Tañada v.
Cuenco, it held that although under the Constitution, the legislative power is vested exclusively
in Congress, this does not detract from the power of the courts to pass upon the constitutionality
of acts of Congress. In Angara v. Electoral Commission, it ruled that confirmation by the National
Assembly of the election of any member, irrespective of whether his election is contested, is not
essential before such member-elect may discharge the duties and enjoy the privileges of a
member of the National Assembly.
Finally, there exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review
over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the
Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and “one section is not to be allowed to defeat
another.” Both are integral components of the calibrated system of independence and
interdependence that ensures that no branch of government act beyond the powers assigned
to it by the Constitution.
ISSUES:
1. Verification of the Complaint
House Secretary General Reginald Velasco confirmed that the three impeachment complaints
filed against Vice President Sara Duterte have all been verified
The three impeachment complaints, which are all connected with the alleged misuse of
confidential funds, were filed and endorsed late last year at the House of Representatives.
Vice President questioned the validity and constitutionality of the fourth impeachment
complaint, which was eventually transmitted by the House of Representatives.
initiation of the impeachment complaint was procedurally defective, constitutionally infirm, and
jurisdictionally void. The impeachment complaint was processed without prior committee
evaluation and with defects in the verification process.
verification process requires that the allegations must be personally known or have been
personally studied by the congressmen who signed the complaint.
Vice President Sara Duterte, charges of "violation of the constitution, betrayal of public trust,
graft and corruption, and other high crimes." Among the crimes outlined is an alleged
assassination plot against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
2. Grounds for impeachment
With 215 votes, more than double the required one-third (102 signatory lawmakers), she was
officially impeached by the House of Representatives during its last session, just before it
adjourned for a three-month break for the campaign season.
Based on the seven Articles of Impeachment filed by the House, Duterte allegedly committed
betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and
other high crimes all impeachable offenses provided by the Constitution, except for treason.
According to Article I, Duterte allegedly committed betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of
the Constitution, and other high crimes when she threatened to plot the murder or assassination
of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and Speaker Ferdinand Martin
Romualdez.
In Article II, House lawmakers accused Duterte of betraying public trust and committing graft and
corruption for allegedly misappropriating and malversation of the CFs allocated to her office
(P500 million) and the Department of Education (P112.5 million) during her tenure as secretary.
Similar to Article II, Article III states that Duterte betrayed the public trust, committed graft and
corruption, and bribery. While it did not explicitly outline the rationale for the charges, it can be
recalled that at least four officials of DepEd, including former undersecretary and chief of staff
Michael Poa, admitted in a House inquiry that they used to receive cash envelopes from Duterte,
with ex-undersecretary Gloria Mercado revealing that hers contained as much as P50,000
monthly.
Meanwhile, in Article IV, Duterte was accused of culpable violation of the Constitution and
betrayal of public trust for allegedly amassing unexplained wealth and failing to declare her
properties in her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN). In December 2011, the
late former Supreme Court justice Renato Corona was impeached on the same grounds. Both
Corona and Duterte were impeached by the House in just one day, using the shortcut route of
mustering the required votes and bypassing the extensive process of conducting committee
hearings.
In Article V, Duterte was alleged to have committed high crimes, including murder and
conspiracy to commit the same. In Article VI, lawmakers alleged that Duterte committed acts of
destabilization, which constitute a culpable violation of the Constitution and even the high
crimes of sedition and insurrection. Lastly, in Article VII, lawmakers asserted that the totality of
the abovementioned acts demonstrates that Duterte is unfit to remain in office.
3.Recess of the Congress:
Legally, an impeachment trial cannot proceed during recess because the impeachment court
has not been convened. The complaint has not been referred to the plenary, which is necessary
before the Senate can act as an impeachment court," The Senate will handle the impeachment
process with neutrality and fairness. “Senate will carry out their duties with the cold neutrality
of an impartial judge, without fear or favor. Senate will rule based on what is right and what the
law provides”
Conclusion:
There are only a handful of government officials that can be impeached. They are the President,
the Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, members of the Constitutional Commission
and the Ombudsman.
Under Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution, any member of the House of Representative or any
citizen upon endorsement of a House member may file an impeachment complaint. The
complaint will then be assessed by the House Justice Committee if it is sufficient in form and in
substance. But this can all be skipped if a complaint gets endorsed by at least one-third of the
total number of sitting congressmen. The impeachment rap would then be directly transmitted
to the Senate. In the case of Duterte, three impeachment complaints were already filed by
various complainants. But these did not have the chance to undergo a committee hearing. On
Feb. 5, the fourth impeachment complaint came. It was a 33 page complaint that indicated six
major allegations within seven articles impeachment. It basically cited Duterte's alleged
betrayal of public trust, commitment of graft and corruption, violation of the Constitution,
commitment of high crimes, including conspiracy to commit murder and committing acts of
destabilization. Unlike the previous three raps, it was immediately endorsed to the Senate on
the strength of 215 signatures from House members. The Senate will have to draft new
impeachment rules before holding the actual trial.
However, this may not happen anytime soon, unless there is a special session. This was because
the Senate already announced a session break to give way the May12, 2025 elections. According
to the Constitution, the upper chamber shall have the "sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment”. Duterte will face removal from her seat if two-thirds of the 23 members of Senate
vote to convict her and the House promulgates its rules on the impeachment.