HOUSE Assistant Majority Leader and Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong called the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte a “litmus test” for democracy in the country.
“It is actually a litmus test for us that we can say this democracy still works,” Adiong, one of the House’s impeachment trial spokesmen, said in the Saturday News Forum on May 23, 2026.
“And this is the perfect and democratic venue for both sides to air their complaint,” he said.
On May 18, 2026, the Senate convened as an impeachment court and ordered the issuance of a writ of summons directing Duterte to file an answer on the articles of impeachment. This came after the House of Representatives, voting 257-25 with nine abstentions, impeached her on May 11, over alleged misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth she allegedly amassed, alleged bribery, and the kill remark against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., and sent the impeachment articles to the Senate for trial.
Under the 1987 Constitution, only the House can initiate impeachment cases and only the Senate can conduct an impeachment trial.Duterte, who has a June 1, 2026, deadline to file her answer to the impeachment articles, denied the allegations in the two complaints heard by the House Committee on Justice. This committee found probable cause to impeach her on April 29, 2026, and subsequently sent the impeachment articles to the House plenary for action.
Adiong said in the forum that “what we just want to establish is that there will be enough time for all the articles to be aired, to be explained to the public because... we are all stakeholders... in this issue.”
“What we are talking about here is how strong our Constitution is...,” he said.
Duterte’s removal from office and a lifetime ban from any government position.
“Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that after trial, the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, render judgment” declaring her guilty on all the articles; imposing upon her “the penalty of removal from office as Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines and perpetual disqualification from holding any office under the Republic of the Philippines”; and declaring that she “shall further be liable to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.”
Article I alleged that Duterte committed culpable violations of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayed public trust “through the systematic misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation of confidential funds amounting to” P500 million “released to the Office of the Vice President and” P112.5 million “released to the Department of Education.”
Duterte served as Education secretary before she resigned from that post in 2024.
Article II alleged that she committed culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayed public trust when she: allegedly amassed “unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and earnings during her incumbency as a public official”; allegedly failed “to fully and truthfully disclose all her and her spouse’s assets, liabilities, and net worth in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), including in her SALN for the years 2022, 2023, and 2024”; and allegedly failed “to divest, and instead, willfully continued, all her business interests during her tenure as” vice president “for the years 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025.”
Article III alleged that she “committed bribery, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayed public trust when she gave monetary gifts or payments to” certain people “to induce the violation and circumvention of procurement and other related laws.”
The last article, Article IV, alleged that Duterte “committed culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and betrayed public trust by contracting for the assassination of” President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Leyte 1st District Rep. and former speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez “by making grave threats, and by actively inciting sedition against the” republic.
Duterte has denied making an assassination threat.
In her answer to the complaints, she said that the complaints failed to show “any shred of proof” that a contract to kill ever existed. “Instead, complainants rely on exaggerated conclusions dressed up as fact,” it read.
“Absent any statement of ultimate facts in any of these Impeachment Complaints, there is nothing for the respondent to answer. Respondent thus only admits averments therein insofar as they allege her election, assumption to the Office of the Vice President, appointment as Secretary of Education, and her prior offices as Mayor and Vice Mayor of Davao City,” Duterte’s answer to the complaints read.
“The rest of the allegations, including the annexes and so-called evidence attached to the Impeachment Complaints, are specifically denied for being false, misleading, irrelevant, and mere conclusions of fact and law,” it added.
