THE House of Representatives Committee on Justice has scheduled a final clarificatory hearing on April 29, 2026, on the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. Batangas Second District Rep. Gerville Luistro, the committee chairman, said there was a “very big possibility” that the panel would proceed to vote on the determination of probable cause at the conclusion of the April 29 hearing.
If the committee finds probable cause at the end of this session, the proceedings will move to the House plenary for a vote on whether to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
What is taking the House too long to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate? It seems that the House is already overdoing the clarificatory hearings, seemingly more of a publicity stunt and to gain more air time for reelectionist lawmakers in the 2028 elections.
Sufficient in form and substance
Four separate complaints were filed in early 2026. On Feb. 2, 2026, two complaints were filed: one by the Makabayan bloc and another by a group led by Tindig Pilipinas, Akbayan and Mamamayang Liberal (ML). A week after, on Feb. 9, 2026, a third complaint was filed by some religious leaders led by Father Saballa. Finally, on Feb. 18, 2026, a fourth complaint was filed by lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera.
These complaints were formally referred to the House Justice Committee on Feb. 23, 2026, which marked the official initiation of the impeachment proceedings.
On March 2, 2026, the committee ruled that the third and fourth complaints were sufficient in form. During this same meeting, the first complaint (Makabayan) was set aside for allegedly violating the one-year bar rule, and the second (Tindig/Akbayan/ML) was withdrawn as its backers chose to support the religious sector’s complaint.
On March 4, 2026, the committee ruled that the two remaining complaints were sufficient in substance, allowing the process to advance to the next stage. Vice President Duterte was formally notified and given 10 calendar days to file a written answer to the allegations. She filed her answer ad cautelam on March 16, 2026.
On March 18, 2026, the committee took up the question of sufficiency in grounds — a distinct and additional stage under House rules that examines whether the allegations, taken together with the respondent’s answer, provide sufficient basis to proceed to a full hearing. The committee found both complaints sufficient in grounds, noting that the vice president’s answer ad cautelam failed to substantively address the allegations against her. This ruling authorized the committee to proceed to a hearing proper for the determination of probable cause.
The current House hearings, which began on March 25, 2026, serve as a deliberative process to determine if “probable cause” exists to impeach the vice president. These hearings are supposedly necessary because the Supreme Court previously ruled that even complaints with significant House support require a formal deliberative process before being transmitted to the Senate.
Constitutional provisions
Under Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the vice president is explicitly named as an impeachable official who may be removed from office for specific high crimes or misconduct.
According to Article XI, Section 2, the vice president may be removed upon conviction of any of the following: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust.
The House of Representatives holds the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment (Article XI, Section 3). A verified complaint can be filed by any member of the House or by any citizen whose complaint is endorsed by a House member.
The complaint must then be referred to the proper committee (the Committee on Justice) within three session days of being included in the Order of Business. The committee must submit its report and resolution to the House within 60 session days. A vote of at least one-third of all members of the House is required to either affirm a favorable committee resolution or override a contrary one.
It is worth noting that if a verified complaint or resolution is filed by at least one-third of all House members, it immediately constitutes the Articles of Impeachment, and the trial by the Senate proceeds “forthwith” without the standard committee hearings.
On the other hand, the Senate has the sole power to try and decide all impeachment cases. No official can be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
A judgment of conviction is limited to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines. However, the individual remains liable and subject to subsequent prosecution, trial and punishment according to law in regular courts.
If we look closely at the related provisions of the Constitution, the text of Article XI does not mention “probable cause.” So, why is there a need to find the existence of “probable cause”? Should that be considered ultra vires or beyond the Constitution?
Section 3(8) of Article XI does mandate that “Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.” Under this authority, the House of Representatives adopted rules that define the deliberative process but, it does not mean that it could go over what is required in the Constitution.
The finding of “probable cause,” which is actually a “mini trial,” should have been reserved for the Senate during the formal impeachment trial.
allinsight.manilatimes@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/All.Insight.Manila.Times
Viber: (0915)4201085
