The impeachment battle against Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte has entered a delicate new phase, with lawmakers openly weighing whether to accelerate the process or proceed with caution after the Supreme Court struck down last year’s attempt as unconstitutional.
Two fresh impeachment complaints, filed on February 2, 2026, are now sitting on the desk of House Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy III. While some legislators argue that the House can legally move at speed and send the case straight to the Senate, others are warning that haste could again unravel the proceedings.
A Reset After the Supreme Court Ruling
The renewed effort follows a landmark January 28, 2026 Supreme Court ruling that voided the previous impeachment of Duterte. The Court found that the House of Representatives violated the Constitution’s rule allowing only one impeachment proceeding against an official within a year.
Crucially, the ruling clarified that for impeachment purposes, a “session day” is equivalent to a calendar day. That reinterpretation reset the clock and opened the door for new complaints just days later.
On February 5 and 6, House Secretary General Cheloy Velicaria-Garafil confirmed that both new complaints had been formally transmitted to the Speaker’s office, placing the House once again at the centre of a politically charged constitutional process.
Allegations at the Core
The complaints—lodged by the Makabayan coalition and Tindig Pilipinas along with allied groups—revive serious accusations against Duterte, centring on her alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds between 2022 and 2024.
The Makabayan complaint, backed by 45 petitioners from marginalised sectors, accuses Duterte of betrayal of public trust and dereliction of duty. It alleges that officials under her authority prepared implausible accomplishment reports and falsified liquidation documents submitted to the Commission on Audit.
Tindig Pilipinas’ separate complaint, endorsed by 17 complainants and faith-based allies, goes further, alleging culpable violation of the Constitution and high crimes, including claims linked to extrajudicial killings during Duterte’s tenure as mayor of Davao City and unexplained wealth not fully declared in her asset statements.
Duterte’s camp has strongly denied wrongdoing. Her spokesperson, Michael Poa, said: “We are prepared to confront these allegations squarely through the proper constitutional processes, confident that a fair and impartial review will demonstrate that the accusations are devoid of both factual and legal basis.”
The Fast-Track Option
At the heart of the current debate is whether the House should use a rarely invoked procedural shortcut.
Representative Terry Ridon, a member of the House Justice Committee, explained that the Constitution and House rules allow one-third of all House members to directly file articles of impeachment. If that threshold is met before the complaints are referred to committee, the case can be transmitted straight to the Senate for trial.
“This does not prevent one-third of House members from backing articles of impeachment for direct transmission to the Senate, provided that no plenary referral has been made to the House justice committee,” Ridon said, noting that the earliest plenary action could come as soon as February 9.
The fast-track route is attractive to impeachment backers because it bypasses lengthy hearings and avoids triggering another one-year bar on impeachment proceedings.
Luistro Urges Caution
Yet not everyone in the House is eager to move at breakneck speed.
Representative Gerville Luistro, chair of the House Justice Committee, has signalled caution over accelerated procedures. Under House rules, once an impeachment complaint is formally referred to his committee, the one-year prohibition immediately comes into force—raising the stakes of any misstep.
While Luistro has not publicly detailed all his reservations, his position reflects concern that rushing the process could again expose the House to constitutional challenge, repeating the mistake that sank last year’s impeachment.
Senate Calculus and Political Timing
Even if the House clears the procedural hurdles, the fate of the impeachment ultimately lies with the Senate, where political arithmetic remains uncertain.
Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III has called for swift action. “It should not be delayed; it needs to be done as soon as possible, in the quickest way. It would be unfair to both the public and the individual facing charges,” he said.
Former Senate President Franklin Drilon, however, warned that leadership changes could quietly bury the case. “If Sen. Tito Sotto is succeeded by a new Senate President from the minority, the Senate trial will not occur,” he said, linking the outcome to manoeuvring ahead of the 2028 presidential election.
Why It Matters Beyond Manila
Although the impeachment has no immediate effect on prices or jobs, it carries broader implications for governance and public trust.
The alleged misuse of hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential funds—money that could have gone to schools, health care, or social services—cuts to the heart of accountability. Duterte’s former role as Education Secretary gives the case added weight, as education spending affects families nationwide.
For the Philippines, the proceedings are a stress test of constitutional checks and balances. Whether lawmakers choose speed or restraint may determine not only the survival of this impeachment, but also public confidence in democratic oversight.
For now, the House stands at a fork in the road—one path promises swift resolution, the other procedural safety. The decision, legislators acknowledge, will shape the next chapter of one of the country’s most consequential political crises.
