Second impeachment case vs Sara Duterte formally withdrawn

MANILA, Philippines — The second impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte has been formally withdrawn after both endorsers and complainants took an oath swearing that they are pulling out their petition.

During the House of Representatives committee on justice’s hearing on Monday, committee chairperson and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro called on the endorsers — Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima and Akbayan party-list Rep. Percival Cendaña — and the complainants to check if the letter provided to the panel were really theirs.

After de Lima and Cendaña confirmed that the letter in the committee’s hands is the same withdrawal letter that they sent, Luistro turned to the complainants who said the same.

“We place on the record that the endorsers confirm that the letters withdrawing the endorsement are the same letters that they sent to the justice committee. Of course, we understand that this is a formal proceeding. The complaint is likewise under oath, so we want to do it in the proper way as well,” Luistro said.

“There is a letter withdrawing the complaint signed by the complainants, but we would like them to formally confirm this letter, the same way that the endorser confirmed the withdrawal of the endorsement of the impeachment complaint,” she added.

The complainants, led by Tindig Pilipinas co-convenor Kiko Aquino Dee, were then asked to take an oath before the formal withdrawal of the complaints.

“This is a very significant intervening event that the complainants are withdrawing the impeachment complaint and the endorsers are likewise withdrawing their endorsement of the same impeachment complaint,” Luistro said.

“That’s why we want to do it formally, the same way that they filed this impeachment complaint,” she noted.

“The chair is in possession of the letter signed by the complainants […]. I hope you understand this is a very significant intervening event because this is an impeachment complaint that even before it is heard, you wish to withdraw already,” she added.

Earlier, Dee and the complainants, accompanied by de Lima and Cendaña, went to the Office of House Secretary General Cheloy Garafil to submit their letter withdrawing the second impeachment complaint.

In the letter, the 17 complainants said that they are withdrawing the second complaint and will support the third complaint filed by clergy members and lawyers, which de Lima also endorsed, to expedite moves for accountability against the vice president.

“After careful deliberation and reflection, we request to withdraw our Complaint before the Committee on Justice and, instead, to lend our full support behind the Third Impeachment Complaint filed by Rev. Fr. Joel Saballa et al. dated 09 February 2026 and endorsed by Rep. Leila De Lima, which Complaint contains the same allegations and substantial evidence as our Verified Complaint,” they said.

“We believe this action will make the process towards accountability more expedient,” they added.

Aside from this, the group also said that they want to avoid any opportunity for questioning regarding the date their complaint was filed.

The second complaint, like the first complaint, was filed last February 2, 2026, while the first set of impeachment complaints were acted upon last February 5, 2025.

While there are claims that any impeachment complaint should have been filed after February 5, lawyer and former lawmaker Neri Colmenares believes that the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the first set of impeachment complaints as unconstitutional paved the way for filing complaints ahead of time.

READ: Why file Duterte impeachment rap early? Because SC allows it – Colmenares

Colmenares said that SC’s decision to define session days as a calendar day during which the House holds its session means that the first impeachment complaint filed last December 2, 2024 should have been included in the order of business by January 14, 2025, and sent to the House committee on justice by January 21.

Colmenares said this means a new complaint against Duterte could have been filed as early as January 16, but they only learned of this matter after the SC released its decision last January 29.

For the second set of impeachment complaints against Duterte, four petitions have been filed:

• Makabayan Coalition on February 2, endorsed by ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio, Gabriela Rep. Sarah Elago and Kabataan Rep. Renee Co
• civil society groups on February 2, endorsed by Cendaña and de Lima
• lawyers and clergy members on February 9, endorsed by de Lima
• lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera on February 18, endorsed by Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. and Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V

Almost all of the topics discussed in the four impeachment complaints have been brought up already in the first set of raps against Duterte — from allegations of confidential funds misuse, threats against ranking officials, and other possible violations of the 1987 Constitution.

However, all four complaints featured a new factor: The testimony of Ramil Madriaga, Duterte’s former aide.

Madriaga previously asked the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate Duterte for alleged corrupt activities, claiming that he was responsible for “transporting large amounts of money to several persons as instructed by VP Sara.”

READ: Common denominator: VP Sara’s ex-aide new factor in 3 impeachment raps 

While the Office of the Ombudsman has not yet launched a full-blown investigation into the affidavit, Madriaga’s testimony is the first time a person testified to having direct knowledge of the confidential fund issues thrown by Duterte. /apl