House Pursues Accountability Beyond Politics in Duterte Impeachment
The House of Representatives’ drive for accountability goes beyond mere criticism of a politician or political clan. This principle holds true regardless of who is accused — even if it were not Vice President Sara Duterte facing allegations. This was the firm statement of Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon on Friday, addressing claims that the impeachment was fueled by politics and revenge.
Ridon acknowledged that impeachment should not serve political agendas. However, he firmly disagreed with some senators who suggested politics motivated the case. Instead, the House sought answers to long-standing issues, including alleged misuse of confidential funds and intimidation against top officials.
“It’s true. The impeachment proceedings are not about personalities. It is not about the ambition of some, but it should be centered on seeking the truth — talks on confidential fund use are a discussion on accountability, as well as talks about threats to the president, the first lady, and the House speaker,” Ridon explained.
He emphasized that the impeachment is not simply a matter of being pro-Duterte or anti-Duterte. The House’s position would remain consistent regardless of the accused’s identity.
Impeachment Applies Equally to All Officials
Ridon further clarified that impeachment tools apply equally to any official — whether Vice President Duterte, a sitting president, or Supreme Court justices — should there be credible allegations of wrongdoing.
“Whether or not it is Vice President Sara Duterte, whoever the country’s vice president may be, whoever is the president of the Philippines, the Supreme Court justice, if there are alleged violations regarding the use of public funds, if there is a Mary Grace Piatos signing acknowledgement receipts, the impeachment proceedings would continue,” Ridon stated.
Although Ridon did not specify which senators voiced concerns over political motives, Senate President Francis Escudero openly questioned whether the impeachment advocates sought genuine accountability or were simply against the Dutertes.
Senate Debates Impeachment Motions Amid Constitutional Questions
During a recent Senate session, Escudero raised pointed questions: “Are you truly for accountability or simply anti-Duterte? Do you truly respect and want to preserve the Constitution, or you simply hate the vice president? Are you serving the nation’s interest or protecting and pursuing your own personal ambitions or agenda?”
These remarks came as senators voted on a motion to archive the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte following the Supreme Court’s ruling that deemed the impeachment unconstitutional.
The Senate eventually voted 19-4 to suspend the impeachment process, pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the House’s motion for reconsideration.
Senator Alan Peter Cayetano added that political opponents should simply defeat Duterte in the 2028 elections rather than resort to impeachment.
“Isn’t what the Supreme Court said correct? There can be an impeachment but this should not be used by political opponents. If we do not want Vice President Sara to be elected president, beat her in 2028,” Cayetano said in Filipino.
Background of the Impeachment Case
Vice President Sara Duterte was impeached on February 5 after 215 House members filed a fourth complaint alleging misuse of confidential funds, threats against officials, and other possible constitutional violations.
The Articles of Impeachment were swiftly transmitted to the Senate, triggering the trial process mandated by the 1987 Constitution.
However, two petitions were filed at the Supreme Court to halt the impeachment. One petition, from Mindanao-based lawyers, argued that the House failed to act within the required 10 session days. Duterte’s legal team, including her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, also sought to stop the case citing the constitutional rule limiting impeachment complaints to one per year per official.
On July 25, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the Articles of Impeachment unconstitutional for violating this one-year bar rule.
House Investigation Reveals Irregularities in Fund Use
The impeachment allegations arose partly from House committee investigations into the Offices of the Vice President and the Department of Education.
One notable discovery was the presence of suspicious names signing acknowledgement receipts (ARs) for confidential expenses. ARs serve as proof submitted to the Commission on Audit confirming funds reached intended confidential informants.
Antipolo City Rep. Romeo Acop pointed out that one signer, Mary Grace Piattos, had a name resembling a restaurant and a potato chip brand. Meanwhile, Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong revealed two ARs received by a Kokoy Villamin, whose signatures differed across documents.
These names were not found in the Philippine Statistics Authority database, raising further questions about the legitimacy of the receipts.
For more news and updates on the impeachment proceedings, visit Filipinokami.com.
