Filipinos weighing proof for and against VP Sara

To suppress the truth, VP Sara Duterte repulses impeachment by:

• Belittling it as mere politics against her 2028 presidential bid;

• Diverting public attention to Bongbong Marcos’ health;

• Using the Supreme Court as shield against evidence.

But thinking Filipinos know that impeachment is both legal and political. Acquittal needs only nine of 24 Senate votes. Eleven owe Sara or her Tatay Digong political favors: Alan Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Bato dela Rosa, Chiz Escudero, Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Go, Rodante Marcoleta, Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla, Joel Villanueva, Mark Villar.

“People will watch how they comport themselves as senator-judges,” says former FEU Law dean Mel Sta. Maria. In January 2001 Filipinos staged EDSA People Power II when senators quashed documentary evidence.

Ouster plots against BBM are impotent. Only five of 975 retired generals are loyal to Rody, not Sara. Over 150 retirees openly voice fury against plunderers, political dynasts and election fraudsters. But they’re not about to put up a Manchurian candidate either.

Photo from Philippine News Agency

SC Justices can no longer immunize Sara from impeachment. They did so twice before, reaping public scorn:

• On July 25, 2025 they ruled on Sara’s Feb. 18 anti-impeachment petition. Ignored was an earlier one received on Feb 14. Atty. Catalino Generillo had asked SC to compel the Senate to try Sara forthwith. That plea ripened for decision on May 20, the day after the Senate submitted its hearing schedule.

Sara’s petition ripened for ruling only on July 17, a day after the House of Reps complied with the SC order for comment.

The SC sessioned despite typhoon floods. It claimed that the House never held a plenary on Feb. 5, 2025 to impeach Sara by 215 signatures. It cited as “proof” an ABS-CBN News report. Yet that report twice stated that a plenary was in fact held, and showed a video. To date SC hasn’t explained its booboo of relying on nonexistent news. It hasn’t investigated who fed the 13 justices bogus info.

The justices inserted a rider in that ruling. Members of bodies like the SC cannot be impeached if they decided collegially. They in effect inoculated themselves.

• On Jan. 20, 2026 the same 13 justices reaffirmed Sara’s anti-impeachment bid. They reiterated that Sara should be given a chance to debunk evidence. They even hurried up House work by redefining “session days” as calendar days.

Now Sara is questioning impeachment raps anew at SC. With spouse Mans Carpio and her lawyers, she cites five “violations:”

1. Breach of the Constitution’s limit to only one impeachment rap per year.

Dates debunk her. The first and second complainants on Feb. 2, 2026 withdrew on Feb. 9. The House committee on justice is investigating only the third, filed by Rev. Joel Saballa and endorsed by Rep. Leila de Lima on Feb. 9, and the fourth by Atty. Nathaniel Cabrera, endorsed by Bienvenido Abante and Deputy Speaker Francisco Paolo Ortega V on Feb. 18.

2. Speaker Faustino Dy III, not the plenary, supposedly referred the raps to the justice committee.

Records bely this. Last Feb. 23, the committee on rules presented the two complaints. Plenary presiding officer Deputy Speaker Ferjenel Biron referred it to the justice committee.

3. The justice committee supposedly is on a “fishing expedition” for evidence.

But Rep. Terry Ridon says the committee members are naturally gathering evidence. Thus, his subpoenas to BIR and SEC for tax filings and corporate submissions of 10 Sara companies for reconciling with her SALNs.

4. The justice committee allegedly is conducting what chairperson Gerville Luistro called a “mini-trial,” thus preempting the Senate.

Yet the Constitution states that the committee must hear the case. Like investigations by DOJ or ombudsman prosecutors, such probe is to determine “probable cause” or likelihood of offense, Sta. Maria explains.

5. Mans Carpio claims that subpoena of his and Sara’s tax filings violate his privacy right. Yet tax filings and SALNs are public records.

Yesterday, Ramil Madriaga testified to have delivered suitcases of cash to and from DepEd during Sara’s tenure.

The Saballa case details six offenses:

• Malversing P500-million OVP confidential funds in 2022-2024;

• Malversing P112-million DepEd confidential funds, 2022-2024;

• Bribing DepEd procurement and finance officers Gloria Mercado, PhD, Rhunna Catalan and Resty Osias. When Mercado first testified at a House inquiry in 2024, Sara belittled her as a “DepEd minor employee.” Yet Mercado, who was Sara’s masteral thesis adviser at Development Academy of the Philippines, was DepEd procurement chief.

• Contracting to assassinate BBM, First Lady Liza Araneta and ex-Speaker Martin Romualdez. “No joke, no joke,” she glared during her livestream presscon on Nov. 23, 2024;

• Amassing P2.2-billion bank deposit beyond her government pay and company profits.

• Political destabilizing, sedition, insurrection in calling for BBM’s ouster.

Co-complainants are Frs. Joselito Sarabia, Edilberto Baculi, Rogelio del Rosario, Pastor Leonard Arevalo, Pinky Tam, Maria Loreto Lopez, lawyers Jalilo dela Torre, Democrito Barcenas, Lourdes Barcenas, Srs. Liza Ruedas, Violeta Cecilio, Geraldine Denoga.

The Cabrera complaint accuses Sara of:

• Misusing P612 million in OVP and DepEd confidential funds;

• Omitting or understating assets, bank accounts, cash holdings and property transactions from SALNs;

• Fabricating disbursement receipts to inexistent payees Mary Grace Piattos, Pia Piatos Lim, Chippy McDonald, Carlos Oishi, Fernando Tempura, Reymunda Jane Nova, Milky Secuya, Xiaome Ocho;

• Hiring an assassin against BBM, Araneta, Romualdez.

Impeachment grounds are culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, bribery, other high crimes.