Complainants waive reply, say Sara Duterte failed to address issues

[Updated March 17, 2026, 8:15 p.m.]

MANILA, Philippines — Petitioners behind the third impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte would not submit a reply to the response she gave to the House of Representatives’ committee on justice, as she still supposedly failed to address lingering issues hurled against her.

Lawyers of the third group of complainants, who are led by Catholic priest Joel Saballa, on Tuesday submitted a document to the panel, manifesting that they are already waiving their right to file a reply to Duterte’s consolidated verified answer ad cautelam.

Copies of the manifestation, shared by lawyer Amando Ligutan, showed that the complainants believe that since Duterte “failed to specifically deny each and every material allegation,” the Vice President’s answer ad cautelam does not merit any reply.

“Considering that respondent’s 15-page Consolidated Verified Answer Ad Cautelam, dated March 13, 20262, conspicuously failed to specifically deny each and every material allegation3 in the 98-page impeachment complaint, complainants deem it unnecessary to file a reply thereto,” the complainants said.

“Particularly concerning is respondent’s obvious conflation of what is otherwise a clear and basic distinction between ultimate facts, on one hand, and evidentiary facts, on the other hand,” they added.

According to the complainants, Duterte — despite several opportunities to do so — still failed to explain how P125 million worth of confidential funds allocated in 2022 were spent in just 11 days.

“Complainants also note, and lament, respondent’s continued failure to explain to the Filipino people how she was able to spend P125,000,000.00 in eleven (11) days, and where exactly the total amount of P612,500,000.00 entrusted to her by the public went,” they said.

“Despite the gravity of the accusations against her, and the unmistakable public character of the funds she is charged of misappropriating, respondent ultimately said nothing to defend herself. Accordingly, complainants manifest their intention NOT to file a reply to respondent’s non-answer,” they added.

In her lawyers’ response to the two remaining impeachment complaints, Duterte claimed that the House committee on justice treated her case differently from the one faced by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

According to them, accusations against Marcos were supposedly disregarded while the supporting evidence against her was treated as gospel truth — showing alleged double standards.

Duterte’s legal team was referring to the two impeachment complaints filed against Marcos: the first by lawyer Andre de Jesus last Jan. 19, and another by members of the Makabayan Coalition last Jan. 22.

Both were declared sufficient in form but failed the substance test last Feb. 4.

READ: Sara Duterte lawyers hit ‘double standards’ in treatment of impeach raps

Aside from this, Duterte’s camp claimed that the accusations against her were merely exaggerated, like claims that the Vice President contracted an assassin to kill Marcos, first lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.

Duterte’s lawyers said the allegations have not been backed up by any contract, as complainants relied on “exaggerated conclusions.”

Furthermore, Duterte’s team reiterated the Vice President’s observations that Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno’s request for a subpoena on documents that may be vital to the impeachment proceedings only shows that complainants do not have any evidence with them.

READ: Sara Duterte’s counsel says charges exaggerate issues, lack proof

Several lawmakers have already called out Duterte’s team for its response. On Monday, Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said the Vice President’s lawyers should read the Supreme Court (SC) decision again after they claimed that the allegations raised in the impeachment complaints were merely recycled.

Ridon stressed that the SC decision, which deemed the first set of impeachment complaints against Duterte as unconstitutional due to the one-year bar rule violation, did not discuss the merits of the case, but merely technicalities.

According to the lawmaker, the SC decision itself stated that their ruling “did not absolve” Duterte.

“They have to read the both SC decision and resolution again. The SC decision and resolution did not junk the 2025 Duterte impeachment on substantive grounds, but only on procedural matters,” Ridon said.

“SC even said that their ruling did not absolve the Vice President,” he added.

Ridon also said that Duterte’s team failed to “directly respond to the allegations contained in the two impeachment complaints pending before the House.”

READ: Ridon urges VP Duterte’s lawyers to ‘read SC decision again’

Two out of four complaints remain under the jurisdiction of the House committee on justice, after the first complaint was set aside for allegedly violating the one-year bar rule, while the second was withdrawn by its petitioners.

On March 4, the panel declared the third and fourth complaints as sufficient in substance.  All four complaints contained allegations that are similar to the botched impeachment attempt last February 2025 — from allegations of confidential funds misuse, threats against ranking officials, bribery of officials, and other possible violations of the 1987 Constitution. /das /mr