House team studies contents of Sara Duterte’s reply to impeachment raps
Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro
MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives’ prosecution team is studying the response of Vice President Sara Duterte to the Articles of Impeachment against her.
This move was stated by House prosecutor and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro on Tuesday.
In a message to reporters, Luistro confirmed having received Duterte’s Answer Ad Cautelam on Monday, after a messenger from Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar law firm delivered a copy to the House premises.
According to Luistro, the prosecution team will reply within the five days provided under the impeachment rules.
“We confirm having received yesterday, June 23, 2025, the Answer Ad Cautelam of the Vice President. The entire prosecution team is currently studying each and every allegation contained in the Answer,” she said.
“Certainly, we will be filing a Reply within 5 days from receipt as provided in the Rules,” she added.
In Duterte’s response, she maintained that the impeachment complaint should be declared void from the beginning because it supposedly violated the limitation set under the 1987 Constitution.
She asserted that only one impeachment proceeding may be initiated against the same official.
“The Fourth Impeachment Complaint must be dismissed because it is void ab initio for violating the One-Year Ban Rule under Section 3 (5) Article XI of the 1987 Constitution which explicitly prohibits the initiation of more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a period of one year,” Duterte’s answer read.
READ: Duterte tells impeachment court: ‘Raps vs me invalid from outset’
Article XI, Section 3 (5) states that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
This was the same argument raised by Duterte before the Supreme Court (SC) last February 2025, through her lawyers that included her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.
She had said the impeachment complaint supposedly violated constitutional provisions stating that only one impeachment complaint would be initiated against a sitting official per year.
READ: VP Sara Duterte files petition at SC to stop impeachment moves against her
However, as early as February, members of the House prosecution team for the impeachment noted that the one-year ban had not yet taken effect before Duterte was impeached on February 5.
According to San Juan Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora, the one-year ban on new complaints had not yet taken effect because the first three raps had not been forwarded to the Office of the House Secretary General.
Zamora stressed that the SC had already decided in Francisco v. House of Representatives that the one-year prohibition on filing new impeachment complaints will start only after the charges are forwarded to the House Committee on Justice.
Duterte was impeached after 215 lawmakers filed and signed a verified impeachment complaint against her.
The Articles of Impeachment were immediately sent to the Senate as Article XI, Section 3 (4) of the 1987 Constitution states that a trial should proceed forthwith if one-third of House members file the complaint.
As one-third of 306 House members is 102, the requirement was fulfilled.
However, the trial did not start as the Articles of Impeachment were not sent to the Senate plenary before the session adjourned for the election season break.
Duterte’s impeachment was hinged on different issues like the allegations of confidential funds’ misuse within her offices, and threats to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and House Speaker Martin Romualdez assassinated. /apl
