VICE PRESIDENT Sara Duterte has formally asked the Senate to dismiss the impeachment charges against her, asserting that the case sent by the House of Representatives is “constitutionally infirm, procedurally defective, and substantively deficient.”
In an executive summary of her Answer submitted to the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, Duterte’s defense counsel argued that the House Committee on Justice (COJ) overstepped its constitutional boundaries by conducting what its own leadership called a “mini-trial” before the case even reached the Senate.
“The Constitution vests in the House the power to initiate impeachment proceedings, but reserves the power to try and decide impeachment cases solely to the Senate,” the defense panel stated, adding that the lower house’s gathering of testimonies, subpoenas, and credibility assessments amounted to an unauthorized trial.
The Vice President’s legal team raised eight key arguments demanding the outright dismissal of the Articles of Impeachment:
1. Violation of Due Process and Pre-Judgment
The defense claimed that the House panel had predetermined the outcome, noting that several lawmakers publicly declared they had sufficient votes to impeach Duterte long before the hearings concluded.
Furthermore, the defense argued that new evidence—such as records from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), the Ombudsman, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—was introduced during the hearings without giving the Vice President a fair opportunity to confront the new accusations.
2. Inclusion of Non-Impeachable Terms
Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives, the defense argued that an impeachable officer can only be held accountable for acts committed during their incumbent term. The defense slammed the inclusion of allegations dating back to Duterte’s tenure as Mayor and Vice Mayor of Davao City, stating local positions are non-impeachable offices.
3. No Proof of Financial Malfeasance
On the highly contested issue of her office’s confidential funds, the defense maintained that there is no final determination by any competent tribunal establishing misuse, graft, or plunder. Instead, they argued that House evidence confirmed the fund releases underwent requisite approval processes.
Similarly, the defense dismissed allegations of unexplained wealth and Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) violations as “assumptions, conjectures, and speculative inferences” drawn from records outside her term as Vice President.
4. Statements ‘Taken Out of Context’
Addressing accusations of political destabilization, sedition, or alleged threats against government officials, the defense countered that the charges are built on political rhetoric and statements either taken out of context or not made by the Vice President herself.
“Constitutional accountability cannot rest upon conjecture, innuendo, or strained interpretations of political statements,” the summary read.
Concluding the brief, Duterte’s defense panel maintained that the allegations fail to meet the high constitutional threshold required for conviction—specifically culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
They concluded that the Articles are the product of an “unauthorized evidentiary fishing expedition” and should be dismissed.
