Sara returns to the SC: Same script, weaker plot

As expected, Vice President Sara Duterte was back once again at the Supreme Court last week, asking the high tribunal to stop the House committee on justice from continuing its hearings on the new impeachment complaints against her. But she offers nothing new. It’s the same script, but with a weaker plot.

Sara quietly filed the petition on Tuesday, asking the Court for “clarity” on whether the impeachment process is constitutional. She also asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The Court, unsurprisingly, did not grant one.

It’s not hard to see why. Her petition is, frankly, laughable. The Vice President is questioning the House of Representatives’ exercise of its constitutional duty to hear the new impeachment complaints, which is now governed by the new rules set by the Supreme Court itself. These rules arose from Duterte’s earlier petition questioning last year’s impeachment process. In effect, she is asking to stop the very process she herself asked for. It’s like complaining that the game is rigged and demanding new rules. After getting a favorable new set of rules, she realizes that they don’t guarantee her a win, so she complains again.

Her argument that impeachment complaints must first be deliberated upon and voted on by the House plenary before referral to the justice committee fares no better. In what alternate constitutional universe is she living? Following that logic, all successful impeachments in the past would have been flawed.

The Constitution is clear. It states that impeachment complaints should be included in the plenary’s order of business within 10 session days and referred to the proper committee within three session days. Referral is the operative act. It is largely ministerial. It does not require prior deliberation or voting by the House’s plenary.

Under House rules, the justice committee is tasked to determine whether complaints are sufficient in form and substance, including screening out those that may already be barred. What is the point of the committee’s screening process if every complaint has to undergo full plenary deliberation first?

But then again, if Sara truly believes that the complaints should have been fully deliberated and voted on first by the plenary before being referred, why did not a single ally of the Vice President stand up to challenge the referral? Not one. Never mind her family members in Congress who are often conspicuously absent. But not even a whisper from Congressmen “Imagination” and “Premonition” and the rest of the Duterte Karton Network? That moment would have been the proper time to challenge it.

But it gets more absurd. Her camp challenges the constitutionality of the House impeachment hearings because some loosely referred to them as a “mini-trial” and from there, they conclude that the House is conducting a trial that only the Senate can conduct.

Really now? Is this the best argument that her 16 lawyers can come up with? A simple magic label can alter constitutional design?

So, if someone tells Sara that the Earth is flat, she will readily believe it? Maybe we should start calling the hearings a “graduation ceremony.” Maybe then, the Vice President would finally show up and even offer advice to House members on having a “Plan A, B, and C in life.”

Let’s be clear. The House has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment, which necessarily includes determining whether there is probable cause. On the other hand, the Senate has the exclusive power to try and decide the case.

Since the House must determine probable cause, its role is inherently evidentiary. Simply put, committee hearings, affidavits and inquiries are part of an investigation, not a trial. The Senate trial only takes place after the House approves and transmits the articles of impeachment.

The House has the power to compel documents and testimony, as part of its broader power of inquiry and its constitutional duty in impeachment. The requirement that an impeachment complaint be “verified” ensures initial credibility, but it does not freeze the evidence to what is written in the complaint. The committee may still develop the facts to determine whether there is sufficient basis to proceed.

Without doubt, Sara is grasping at straws. In her effort to avoid accountability, she is deploying arguments that strain even basic reasoning.

She has every right to be desperate. The House committee on justice is expected to examine her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs), confidential fund use, the Madriaga testimony and even banking accounts. All of these point to serious charges of corruption which, according to various surveys, is the single greatest issue making more and more people distrustful of her.

Pulse Asia’s year-on-year comparison (March 2025 to March 2026) is very instructive. Her trust rating declined from 61 percent to 54 percent, while distrust rose significantly from 16 percent to 26 percent.

WR Numero’s latest survey reflects a similar trend. While she remains ahead in presidential preference surveys, her lead is not expanding. In fact, her closest competitors are gaining ground.

Her camp is clearly aware of this. Hence, the obvious effort to soften her public image, recover lost trust and persuade undecided voters. Unfortunately for them, Sara, who is used to the culture of impunity, cannot show real empathy. Add to this the absence of any legal barrier preventing Congress from proceeding with the impeachment hearings, and public distrust will continue to deepen.

Sara may have killed the first impeachment process last year, but this one is proving harder to derail.

It’s like lightning. They say it rarely strikes the same place twice. Unless, of course, you’re Sara, who keeps getting dragged into the storm of corruption allegations.