Metro Manila, Philippines – Two fresh complaints to oust Vice President Sara Duterte were filed with the House of Representatives on Monday, Feb. 2, amid conflicting interpretations on the one-year bar rule, the provision in the Constitution that prohibits more than one impeachment proceeding against one official in one year.
The Makabayan Coalition filed the first complaint, alleging betrayal of public trust for her supposed mismanagement of P612.5 million funds as vice president and former education secretary. Makabayan bloc representatives Antonio Tinio, Renee Co and Sarah Elago endorsed the complaint.
France Castro, former ACT Teacher’s party-list representative and a complainant in the petition against Duterte, said the vice president committed gross abuse of discretionary power, gross disregard of transparency and accountability by making a mockery of the audit process.
“Hindi siya sumasagot doon sa mga tanong sa lahat ng committee, budget hearings so nag-asal pusit ang vice president,” she said.
[Translation: She doesn’t answer the questions in all the committees and budget hearings, so the vice president acted like a squid.]
Another group of civil society and religious leaders filed the second complaint, citing five grounds for impeachment: culpable violations of the Constitution, graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust and other high crimes.
Seventeen petitioners signed the complaint, led by Kiko Aquino Dee, grandson of former President Corazon Aquino and former Sen. Ninoy Aquino, and Ramon Magsaysay awardee Fr. Flavie Villanueva.
Akbayan Party-list Rep. Perci Cendaña and ML Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima endorsed the complaint.
The separate petitions were the first batch of complaints after the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional her previous impeachment in July 2025.
What the complaint entails
Both complaints were refiled versions of previous petitions, separately lodged in December 2024.
Makabayan’s complaint mainly focused on the supposed misuse of funds.
The second complaint cited other reasons, including the assasination threats of Duterte to the family of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in 2024, the vice president’s supposed unexplained wealth, and alleged conspiracy to commit murder in relation to extrajudicial killings in Davao City.
“The question before this Honorable House of Representatives is therefore not one of politics, but of principle. Not of expedience, but of fidelity of the Constitution. In moments such as this, the strength of a democracy is measured not by the power of its officials, but by the courage of its institutions to hold them to account,” the complaint read.
The two impeachment bids also added testimony from Ramil Madriaga, Duterte’s self-confessed bagman, who claimed he was instructed to deliver large amounts of money to individuals.
Duterte has denied the allegations.
In a statement, Duterte’s defense team said it is prepared to confront the allegations through proper constitutional processes, confident that a fair review will demonstrate the accusations are baseless.
Filing date
The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court’s Jan. 28 ruling allowed the filing of impeachment complaints on Jan. 15 or earlier than Feb. 6, 2026. The SC ruled that the impeachment was deemed initiated when the first complaints weren’t placed in the Order of Business within 10 session days.
Session days, as defined by the court, refers to a calendar day that the House holds a session, not legislative session days.
“As I understand it, the last day when the bar applied was Jan. 14, meaning Jan. 15 onwards, pwede na mag-file [we can already file a new complaint],” Dee said, citing the SC ruling which stated that the House should have included the first complaint filed on Dec. 2, 2024 in the Order of Business on Jan. 14, 2025.
“We’re following the Supreme Court decision, we’re following the Constitution and the rules, kaya in this case tamang tama ang pag-file nitong complaint nito [so it’s just right to file this complaint], it is within the Supreme Court decision and after the one year bar,” Neri Colmenares, one of petitioners of the first complaint said.
To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed before the House in December 2024 – before a one-third of lawmakers endorsed the ouster bid against Duterte on February 5, 2025.
On Jan. 28, SC spokesperson Camille Ting said the one-year bar applies after the transmission of the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
‘At a crossroads’
In a press briefing, House justice committee chairperson Jinky Luistro admitted that she herself was confused by the SC ruling on the one-year bar rule.
“They were saying that the first impeachment complaint that was December 2, 2024 because of inaction of the House was deemed initiated when the period of 10 session days lapsed, that was January 14 of 2025…So we are (at) a crossroad again. Which are we going to follow?” she said.
Meanwhile, Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said the safest period for the plenary to refer the new complaints to the justice committee would be after Feb. 6 once the one-year bar rule in July 2025 ruling lapsed.
In a chance interview, senior deputy majority leader Lorenz Defensor said the House will revise House rules on impeachment to be aligned with the SC decision and the Constitution.
He admitted reservations on the ruling.
“It bothers me that they are dictating how they will interpret our own session days,” Defensor said.
“How you define a session day, it shouldn’t be defined by the judicial department, it should be the legislative department,” he added.
