Metro Manila, Philippines – The formal hearing of the House of Representatives on the impeachment suits against Vice President Sara Duterte, dubbed by the justice panel chairperson as a “mini trial,” will begin on March 25, after the committee declared the complaints sufficient in grounds.
On Wednesday, March 18, panel members declared that there was sufficient grounds for the third and fourth complaints after reviewing the reply of Duterte submitted on March 16.
Batangas 2nd district Rep. Jinky Luistro, committee chairperson, set the hearings for March 25, April 14, April 22, and April 29.
The House earlier adopted a resolution, authorizing the panel to conduct hearings during the congressional recess from March 21 to May 3.
Luistro said expected to be discussed on the first day of hearing was the request of securing Ramil Madriaga, Duterte’s alleged bagman, who is detained at Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig city.
Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno earlier requested protective custody for Madriaga, who he said may be a key witness in the case.
He also included motions for the committee to produce records of Duterte’s statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth from 2007 to 2013, 2013 to 2016, and 2022 to 2025 – or from the first time she held public office.
In a press briefing, Luistro said the complainants, witnesses, and respondent will be given the notice to attend the scheduled hearing.
“In addition also, the rule is very clear that only the justice members are allowed to conduct direct examination and cross-examination, which means that while the parties may avail themselves of the services of lawyers, the participation of lawyers with respect to the proceeding before the justice committee is limited only to assisting their clients,” she said.
Duterte is facing two ouster suits for supposed culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, bribery, and other high crimes, over allegations of fund misuse, threats against the presidential family, and unexplained wealth.
The House impeached her in February 2025 over the same grounds, but it was declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional based on procedural errors, not on the merits.
