06/03/2026
VP DUTERTE IMPEACHMENT: LEGAL HURDLES AND NEXT STEPS
The House Committee on Justice has just completed the first stage of the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. Two out of the three impeachment complaints filed hurdled the legal requirements of sufficiency in form and substance.
SUFFICIENCY IN FORM
An impeachment complaint is sufficient in form if it is verified (sworn under oath), properly endorsed by a member of the House, and complies with the required formatting and procedural rules such as the one-year bar rule.
The Supreme Court in Duterte vs. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 278353, January 28, 2026) reiterated its ruling in Francisco vs. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003) wherein it defined the “initiation” of impeachment as the moment a complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice.
The one-year bar rule is a procedural shield that protects impeachable officials from harassment, so that they only defend themselves against impeachment once in any twelve-month period and ensures that Congress is not constantly encumbered by impeachment trials which would distract from its primary job of legislation.
The Committee, on March 2, 2026, set aside the impeachment complaint of the Makabayan bloc for violating the one-year bar rule, having been filed four days before the end of the constitutional ban on February 6, 2026.
SUFFICIENCY IN SUBSTANCE
Once form is established, the Committee determines if the complaints are sufficient in substance by examining whether the complaint contains a clear and specific recital of facts that meet the legal definition of impeachable offenses cited in Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution, namely: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust and other high crimes.
On March 4, 2026, the Committee on Justice voted that the Third and Fourth complaints against the Vice President met these criteria. The Committee found that the allegations regarding the "assassin" threats and the misuse of confidential funds were described with enough factual detail that, if proven true, they would constitute Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.
NEXT STEPS
Since sufficiency in substance has been established, the House is legally required to furnish the Vice President with a copy of the Resolution and the complaints, and issue a Notice to Answer, giving her 10 days from March 4, 2026 (the day the House Committee declared sufficiency of substance) to submit her formal response and counter-affidavits.
If the Vice President chooses not to file a formal Answer, the House Rules state that all material allegations in the complaint are "deemed controverted.” This means the law treats the situation as if she had issued a general denial of all charges. Although it does not count as an admission of guilt, by not filing an Answer, the Vice President waives the opportunity to present her own evidence at the Committee level.
The Committee on Justice will move forward with the Hearing phase regardless of the Vice President’s participation by setting dates to hear the testimony of the complainants and their witnesses. Without an Answer on file, the Vice President's legal team would be limited in their ability to cross-examine witnesses or present a cohesive defense strategy during these initial deliberations.
The Committee will finalize its Formal Report and Resolution based only on the evidence presented by the complainants. This Report is then sent to the Plenary, where the one-third (1/3) vote is required to officially impeach the Vice President and transmit the case to the Senate.
Assuming the Vice President waives her right to participate at the Committee level and the House officially impeaches her, she is not precluded from presenting her evidence at the Senate trial.
# # #
Disclaimer: Op-eds published here express the personal views of the individual lawyers and do not represent the official position or legal advice of VAST Law Firm. Nothing herein should be construed as legal advice or as creating an attorney–client relationship.
