MANILA, Philippines — The Senate’s decision to archive the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte has sparked fierce criticism from lawmakers who say it denies Filipinos due process and weakens the quest for accountability.
Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua and Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong voiced concerns during a press briefing, emphasizing that the public suffers most from the Senate’s move to archive the articles. “It is the people who are denied of due process,” said Chua, chairperson of the House committee on good government and public accountability. “The clamor for accountability is the victim of these actions that we have seen yesterday (Wednesday) at the Senate,” Adiong added.
Senate Archives Impeachment Complaint Against Vice President Sara Duterte
On Wednesday night, the Senate voted 19-4 to archive the impeachment complaint against Duterte. This followed the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling on July 25 that declared the articles unconstitutional, citing a violation of the 1987 Constitution’s one-year bar rule.
Despite this setback, Chua remains hopeful, noting that the fight is far from over. The Supreme Court may reconsider its earlier decision if it accepts the House’s motion for reconsideration. “As far as we know it’s not yet over. We continue to hope we are given due process,” he said.
Adiong expressed little surprise at the Senate’s outcome, pointing out that political alignments heavily influenced the resolution. “The motion to archive is actually the product of an amendment to the original motion which was to dismiss,” he explained, adding that the Senate’s earlier discussions already hinted at an intention to end the impeachment proceedings prematurely.
Background of the Fourth Impeachment Complaint
On February 5, Vice President Sara Duterte was impeached after 215 House members from the 19th Congress filed the fourth complaint against her. The charges involve alleged misuse of confidential funds, threats against senior officials, and other possible breaches of the 1987 Constitution.
The Constitution mandates that once at least one-third of House members endorse an impeachment complaint, the Senate must promptly begin a trial. Accordingly, the articles were transmitted to the Senate immediately.
However, two petitions were filed in February to halt the impeachment proceedings. Mindanao-based lawyers argued the House failed to act on the complaints within the required 10 session days. Duterte’s legal team, which includes her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, also petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming the proceedings violated the constitutional limit of only one impeachment complaint per official per year.
Key Findings from House Investigations
The impeachment stemmed from the House committee’s probe into issues involving Duterte’s offices — specifically the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and previously the Department of Education (DepEd). One striking discovery was the presence of suspicious names signing acknowledgment receipts (ARs) for confidential expenses.
ARs are documents submitted to the Commission on Audit to verify that funds intended for projects were properly disbursed, often to confidential informants in this context.
Antipolo City 2nd District Rep. Romeo Acop noted that one signatory, Mary Grace Piattos, had a name resembling a restaurant and a potato chip brand. Meanwhile, Adiong presented two ARs—one from the OVP and another from the DepEd—both received by a person named Kokoy Villamin. Yet, handwriting and signatures on these documents differed, and neither name could be found in the Philippine Statistics Authority database.
These inconsistencies raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the expenditures and the accountability of Duterte’s offices.
For more news and updates on Senate impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, visit Filipinokami.com.
