Sara Duterte’s answer shows non-recognition of impeachment court – Bucoy

MANILA, Philippines — The answer provided by Vice President Sara Duterte to the articles of impeachment indicate that she does not acknowledge the impeachment court’s authority, House of Representatives prosecution panel spokesperson Antonio Bucoy said on Tuesday.

Bucoy explained that since Answer Ad Cautelam means an answer with caution — and Duterte submitted an Answer Ad Cautelam to the Senate sitting as an impeachment court — he believes the Vice President still does not accept the court’s jurisdiction over the case.

“Ad Cautelam means for caution.  So this means that they have not accepted or they do not acknowledge the jurisdiction of the impeachment court because according to the rules, if you file for a special appearance, you should state the reason why you are questioning the jurisdiction of the judge,” he said. 

“What she did, what the Vice President did through her lawyers […] was to file an Ad Cautelam, Entry of Appearance, but they did not state what is the reason for that.  That is what they did in their Answer Ad Cautelam.  They refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the impeachment court, which is not in accordance,” he added.

According to Bucoy, part of Duterte’s answer is a belief that the impeachment trial should not push through in the first place — which he believes is a mere attempt to evade accountability through technicalities.

“They are hoping that through technicality they can make Vice President Sara evade accountability and have the case dismissed.  That is the whole purpose of this answer ad cautelam.  Like what I have said, you are asking for relief from the court, you are seeking a decision from the court but you do not acknowledge its authority.”

“You had yet to submit to the authority of the court.  Kaya ka may (That’s why there’s an) ad cautelam,” he added.

On June 10, after the Senate convened as an impeachment court, Duterte was ordered to answer the allegations against her contained in the articles of impeachment.

Duterte was impeached by 215 House members last February 5.  The following allegations comprise the articles of impeachment that were sent to the Senate:

• Betrayal of public trust, commission of high crimes due to her threats to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez
• Betrayal of public trust and graft and corruption due to misuse of confidential funds (CF) within the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Office of the Vice President (OVP)
• Betrayal of public trust and bribery within the DepEd
• Violation of the 1987 Constitution and betrayal of public trust due to unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets
• Commission of high crimes, due to involvement in extrajudicial killings (EJKs) in the drug war
• Betrayal of public trust due to alleged destabilization plots and high crimes of sedition and insurrection
• Betrayal of acts due to her unbecoming conduct as Vice President

In her Answer Ad Cautelam submitted to the Senate Impeachment Court on Monday, Duterte maintained that the impeachment complaint should be declared void from the beginning because it supposedly violated the limitation set under the 1987 Constitution — 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’

This was the same argument raised by Duterte before the Supreme Court (SC) last February 2025 through her lawyers — including her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte.

READ: VP Sara Duterte files petition at SC to stop impeachment moves against her

But Bucoy and members of the prosecution team noted that based on a previous Supreme Court decision, the provision limiting impeachment complaints to one per year only starts when a verified petition reaches the House committee on justice.

Since none of the first three complaints that were filed in December 2024 reached the committee on justice — with all staying within the office of House Secretary General Reginald Velasco — Bucoy said that the rule was not violated.

As early as February, San Juan Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora said that the SC had already decided in Francisco v. House of Representatives that the one-year prohibition on the filing of new impeachment complaints will start only after the charges are forwarded to the said panel.

Impeachment presiding officer and Senate President Francis Escudero also mentioned this in his speech last June 10, before the chamber convened as an impeachment court. /gsg