THE House of Representatives impeached Vice President Sara Duterte twice — on Feb. 5, 2025 and May 11, 2026. Four primary articles of impeachment were transmitted to the Senate. Both the 2025 and 2026 impeachments heavily cite the alleged misuse and wastage of P612.5 million in confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, which she then headed, as well as alleged bribery and unexplained wealth.
In the second impeachment in 2026, the articles of impeachment included Article IV, which details allegations of assassination threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the first lady, and the former House speaker. The Senate formally convened as an impeachment court on July 6, 2026, and the trial is currently ongoing.
Let’s review the four articles of impeachment:
Article I: Systemic misuse of confidential funds.
Legal grounds: Culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust.
Key allegations: Misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation of P500 million of the OVP’s confidential funds and P112,500,000 of DepEd confidential funds.
Core evidence: Allegations of bypassing standard disbursing channels, handing funds directly to unauthorized personnel, and submitting falsified liquidation documents and receipts to the Commission on Audit (COA).
Article 2: Unexplained wealth and nondisclosure of assets
Legal grounds: Culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.
Key allegations: Amassing unexplained wealth grossly disproportionate to her lawful income, failing to fully and truthfully disclose assets, liabilities and net worth in her SALNs from 2022 to 2024, and failing to divest from active business interests while holding office.
Court action: The Senate impeachment court issued targeted subpoenas covering bank accounts, tax records, and AMLC filings related to this charge.
Article 3: Bribery and corruption in DepEd procurement
Legal grounds: Bribery, graft and corruption and culpable violation of the Constitution.
Key allegations: Directing monetary gifts and cash envelope payments to DepEd officials.
Core evidence: Testimonies indicating these cash transfers were meant to induce officials to bypass standard public bidding procedures and circumvent procurement laws.
Article 4: Grave threats, inciting to sedition and assassination plot
Legal grounds: Culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes and betrayal of public trust.
Key allegations: Making grave threats against state leadership, contracting an assassin, and inciting sedition against the Republic during a live broadcast.
Specific targets: The threats specifically targeted President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House speaker Martin Romualdez.
Status: The House prosecution panel concluded its formal presentation of evidence for Article IV (grave threats), two days ahead of schedule dropping redundant witnesses and asserting that Vice Presidet Duterte’s videoed admissions were self-incriminating.
Was it a slam dunk for the prosecution? The focal point was NBI Director Melvin Matibag’s appearance for the prosecution as its third and final key witness. He testified as a sworn witness presenting evidence and the findings of the NBI task force, and not as an unsworn “resource person.”
Defense tried to discredit him during cross-examination — undermining his neutrality, attacking the paucity of hard evidence as to who the contracted assassin is, and challenging the procedural admissibility of his testimony. I think he successfully protected his legal standing and hurdled core arguments as an expert witness based on the following:
– Defense counsel filed objections to stop Matibag from testifying about the NBI’s special task force, arguing it was irrelevant and constituted “new information” outside the original articles.
– Presiding officer Chiz Escudero overruled the objections, validating Matibag’s capacity to present the investigative findings of NBI regional director Jeremy Lotoc and senior agent John Mark Calilung, who had testified earlier.
– Matibag testified that Vice President Duterte’s statements amounted to a “consummated betrayal of public trust” and an attempt to “execute the president.” The defense moved to strike his remarks as improper legal conclusions. Escudero denied the motion, noting that as a seasoned lawyer and former law dean, Matibag was qualified to officially express his professional insights.
– Defense attempted to paint Matibag as politically biased referring to his opinion columns prior to becoming NBI chief, among them calling VP Duterte a “bratinella” which actually originated from her father, the former president. He acknowledged it but maintained that the NBI’s findings were driven by objective cybercrime analysis and threat assessments, separate and distinct from his personal opinions.
– Defense counsel cited the vice president’s high public approval ratings to downplay the charge. Matibag countered that trust surveys have no bearing in constitutional investigations.
– He acknowledged, nearly 20 months after the VP’s presscon, that the NBI still hadn’t identified the alleged assassin and was pursuing “persons of interest” needing another 3 to 6 months to conclude the search. Matibag said that the assassin’s identity was irrelevant because her public statements were self-incriminating.
In my view, Matibag succeeded in thwarting attempts to disqualify or discredit him. It left the prosecution with a clean procedural victory to close Article IV. However, the defense was able to obtain a key admission that the NBI’s investigation is still determining who the alleged assassin is, leaving senator-judges to decide whether that missing link is relevant or not to meet the threshold for removal from office and a permanent ban.
This week we move on to Article 2. The court moved to issue subpoenas to key financial entities to support the proceedings for Article II (unexplained wealth). It will reconvene on July 29, 2026 at 10 a.m. to hear Article II.
The prognosis is significantly more dangerous for the defense. Paper trails regarding SALNs and bank deposits have consistently proven to be the most lethal ground for conviction (such as in the 2012 Corona trial). If the AMLC and LandBank records yield substantial undisclosed assets or glaring SALN omissions, it becomes a concrete evidence-backed integrity case. But will the records be released? Are sinister plans afoot to derail the impeachment proceedings?
One last note on the senator-judges. Public opinion seems to weigh against the conduct and performance of the Cayetano siblings and Robin Padilla, specifically their unabashed partiality for the accused, and alignment with the defense’s line of questioning. It’s a mockery of the impeachment trial and a travesty of impartial justice.
Rafael M. Alunan III is a governor of the Management Association of the Philippines, and former Secretary of the Interior and Local Government in the Ramos administration.
