Metro Manila, Philippines – Vice President Sara Duterte faced another impeachment battle early 2026 after surviving a previous attempt to remove her from office.
NewsWatch Plus breaks down the timeline of the fresh impeachment efforts that may not just unseat her – but disqualify her from holding any public office.
Feb. 2 – Two impeachment suits were filed against the vice president 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 first complaint was filed by the Makabayan coalition, citing betrayal of public trust for the alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million of confidential funds in the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education (DepEd).
The other was from civil society groups led by Tindig Pilipinas convenor Kiko Aquino Dee, grandson of democracy icons former President Corazon Aquino and former Sen. Ninoy Aquino. They cited five impeachment offenses: culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes. It was endorsed by Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima and Akbayan Rep. Perci Cendaña.
Feb. 5 – The House Secretary General transmitted two complaints to the Office of the House Speaker.
Feb. 9 – A third ouster bid from religious and civil society groups was filed and endorsed as well by De Lima. While it carried similar grounds as the second impeachment complaint, De Lima described it as an “improved version.”
Feb. 18 – Nathaniel Cabrera, a private lawyer, filed the fourth impeachment suit, citing almost the same grounds from previous filings. Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega and Manila Rep. Benny Abante endorsed the complaint.
On the same day, Duterte announced that she is running for president in 2028.
Feb. 23 – The House of Representatives transmitted the four complaints to the House justice committee, setting the one-year immunity rule against any other bid to remove Duterte from office.
March 2 – The justice panel kicked off its deliberations on the four complaints. Prior to the hearing, Tindig Pilipinas had withdrawn their bid, in support of the third ouster suit to speed up the process.
The third and fourth complaints were declared sufficient in form. The committee ‘set aside’ the Makabayan suit over interpretations that it violated the one-year bar rule.
March 4 – The remaining complaints were declared sufficient in substance, as supported by the overwhelming majority of the committee members.
March 5 – The justice panel served notice to Duterte to respond to the complaints within 10 days.
March 16 – Duterte filed her consolidated answer ad cautelam, her formal reply to the justice committee. She claimed double standards were used against her, in comparison to the junked impeachment bid against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The vice president also said there was no due process and the allegations did not bear ultimate facts.
March 17 – Complainants waived their response to Duterte, calling it a non-answer.
March 18 – The justice committee declared the two complaints sufficient on grounds, paving the way for a proper hearing. Panel chairperson and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Jinky Luistro dubbed the formal proceedings a “mini-trial.”
March 25 – The first formal hearing on the complaints began. The justice panel summoned a number of resource persons and documents, including Duterte’s self-confessed bagman Ramil Madriaga and her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth. Duterte skipped the hearing and questioned the panel’s jurisdiction, flagging the “mini-trial” reference to the proceedings.
April 1 – Duterte turned to the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the proceedings, citing supposed constitutional flaws, including the one-year bar rule. In a document shared by Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon, the vice president sought a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction against the House proceedings. Prior to her filing, known Duterte allies had also asked the SC to stop the impeachment raps.
April 13 – Ridon shared a copy of the petition of Second Gentleman Mans Carpio to prevent the subpoena of the House of Representatives on his tax records, as part of the impeachment proceedings against his wife.
April 14 – Madriaga faced the House justice committee. In his testimony, he claimed that the ₱125-million confidential funds of the OVP in 2022 were disposed of in less than one day – not eleven days, as earlier disclosed in congressional hearings.
The Commission on Audit also shared that it denied the appeal of Duterte on the notice of disallowance previously issued against the agency on at least ₱73.2 million in OVP confidential funds. It issued a disallowance as well for secret funds in the first three quarters of 2023 worth ₱375 million.
Forensic experts from the National Bureau of Investigation disclosed that some acknowledgment receipts from supposed beneficiaries of confidential funds were written by the same people.
April 22 – Duterte’s financial records were disclosed. The Anti-Money Laundering Council said she and her spouse registered at least ₱6.7 billion in covered and suspicious transactions from 2006 to 2025. Lawmakers flagged its supposed disparity with her 2024 declared net worth of ₱88.5 million, as presented by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Former Sen. Sonny Trillanes also appeared before the panel, accusing the Duterte family of receiving money from businessman Sammy Uy, whom he described as a drug lord.
Lawmakers postponed the opening of the box containing the tax records of the Duterte couple, in light of the pronouncement of the Bureau of Internal Revenue that such documents should be examined in an executive session.
April 23 – Duterte maintained that she declared the correct information in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth. She also said the billions in bank transactions as reported by the AMLC are false. Her defense team said the discrepancy in the vice president’s SALN and bank transactions is just a conclusion.
April 27 – Carpio sued members of the House justice committee and officials from the AMLC for disclosing their tax records.
April 29 – In a unanimous decision, the committee found probable cause on the complaints filed against Duterte.
Prior to the voting, lawmakers postponed the scrutiny of the BIR records, leaving the job to the Senate Impeachment Court.
The National Bureau of Investigation also appeared before the panel, saying the video showing Duterte’s threats against Marcos in 2024 was neither edited nor generated by artificial intelligence.
Duterte was absent at the hearing, effectively skipping all the House proceedings.
May 4 – The justice panel unanimously approved the committee report, containing a resolution setting forth the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte.
May 5 – The report and Articles of Impeachment reached plenary and were referred to the committee on rules.
May 6 – The plenary ordered the House-Secretary General to distribute electronic copies of the report and resolution setting forth the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte to House members.
READ: Breaking down the proposed Articles of Impeachment vs. Duterte
May 11 – Luistro is expected to sponsor the committee report before the plenary, and lawmakers will vote whether or not the House will send the case to the Senate for trial.
