Duterte impeachment: First petition in second set of complaints filed

MANILA, Philippines — The first petition in the second set of impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte was filed by groups with the Office of the House Secretary General on Monday morning.

In the verified complaint submitted by members of the Makabayan Coalition, three grounds for impeachment were cited:

• Betrayal of public trust due to Duterte’s alleged gross abuse of discretionary powers over P612.5 million in confidential funds from December 2022 until the third quarter of 2023
• Betrayal of public trust due to Duterte’s alleged her gross disregard of transparency and accountability, making a mockery of the audit process by 1) ordering subordinates to prepare implausible accomplishment reports supported by fabricated liquidation reports and falsified documents, and 2) to submit the same to the commission on audit to support the questionable use of confidential funds that is not in accordance with laws and regulations, causing great injury to the government and the taxpayers
• Betrayal of public trust due to Duterte’s alleged dereliction of official duty, with her willful refusal to recognize congressional oversight during budget deliberations and its authority to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation

Regarding the confidential fund (CF) issue, the complainants cited concerns raised during a hearing of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, where the Office of the Vice President (OVP) received a P125 million CF despite the agency’s original budget—prepared during the tenure of former Vice President Leni Robredo—not including such an item.

Concerns were also raised about fictitious personalities signing acknowledgment receipts (ARs) for the confidential expenses made by Duterte’s offices.

During the hearings, then-Antipolo City 2nd District Rep. Romeo Acop noted that one of the individuals who signed the ARs was named Mary Grace Piattos—a name resembling a restaurant and a potato chip brand.

ARs are documents submitted to the Commission on Audit to verify that funding for projects reached its intended beneficiaries, which in this case are confidential informants.

Later, Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong presented two acknowledgment receipts (ARs)—one for the OVP and another for the Department of Education—both allegedly received by a certain Kokoy Villamin. However, the signatures and handwriting in the two documents appeared to differ.

Neither Piattos nor Villamin’s names were found in the Philippine Statistics Authority database.

READ: House probe: OVP, DepEd CFs received by same man, different signatures 

“To liquidate these expenditures, the respondent’s office submitted approximately 2,670 acknowledgment receipts to the Commission on Audit.  However, these receipts contained numerous irregularities: an accomplishment receipt bore the name ‘Mary Grace Piattos,’ which was later identified as a restaurant and snack brand,2 and was certified by the Philippine Statistics Authority as having a negative record of birth, marriage, and death,” the complaint said.

“At least 158 acknowledgment receipts were dated 2023 but were submitted as expenses for the last quarter of 2022.  Several receipts showed identical names receiving payments from both the OVP and the Department of Education (DepEd) on the same day.  Many receipts were unreadable, unsigned, or lacked necessary details,” it added.

Regarding dereliction of official duty, the complainants cited Duterte’s tendency to skip House hearings on her office’s budget while the chamber prepares the annual budget.

“Dereliction of duty may be either neglect of duty or negligence, and may be either gross or simple. Jurisprudence defines neglect of duty as the failure of an official or employee to give proper attention to a required task expected of her, or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference,” the complainants said.

“On the other hand, gross negligence is “characterized by want of even the slightest care, or by acting  or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty. It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty’,” they added.

Last Friday, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) president Renato Reyes Jr., a member of the Makabayan Coalition, said they are challenging House lawmakers who impeached Duterte on Feb. 5, 2025, to pursue the third mode of impeachment again.

Reyes made the remark when asked about Bayan’s plans following their foiled bid to impeach Duterte, after the Supreme Court upheld an earlier decision declaring the Vice President’s impeachment unconstitutional.

READ: House impeaches VP Sara Duterte, fast-tracking transmittal to Senate

In accordance with the House Rules and the 1987 Constitution, the House transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate on Feb. 5, 2025. Article XI, Section 3(4) provides that if an impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all House members, or through the third mode, “the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

However, the trial did not start immediately, as the articles of impeachment were not brought to the Senate plenary before the session adjourned for the election season break. The Senate also remanded the articles to the House, citing alleged constitutional infirmities.

In the same month, two petitions were filed with the Supreme Court seeking to halt the impeachment complaints against Duterte. One petition, submitted by a group of Mindanao-based lawyers, argued that the House failed to observe constitutional rules requiring it to act on filed impeachment complaints within 10 session days.

READ: Petition to stop impeachment trial vs VP Duterte filed at Supreme Court

In its reply to the Supreme Court, the House asserted that all impeachment complaints were acted upon within the required 10 session days, emphasizing that “session days” should not be confused with “calendar days” or “working days.”

READ: SC junks House appeal on Sara Duterte impeachment case

Eventually, Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting announced that the Court had unanimously ruled the articles of impeachment forwarded by the House to the Senate as unconstitutional for violating the 1987 Constitution’s one-year bar rule.

The House filed a motion for reconsideration to appeal the decision. On Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court announced that it had dismissed the motion with finality. /mcm