All indications point to the House of Representatives impeaching Vice President Sara Duterte.
Even the VP’s camp seems to expect this.
In public, the camp has brushed aside the evidence presented so far before the House justice committee. Even a non-lawyer like me, however, can see that a smoking gun has been presented, which senators sitting as judges can’t easily dismiss.
This is the report of the Anti-Money Laundering Council on billions of pesos in bank transactions of VP Sara and her husband Manases Carpio, which aren’t reflected in their official statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
If the case goes to trial, the AMLC report is certain to be backed by the actual bank records and income tax returns of the VP and her husband.
The response of the VP’s husband to the AMLC report – which is to challenge the disclosure of the banking activities of a private individual, meaning himself – effectively confirms the bank transactions, which the AMLC had flagged as covered and suspicious.
Before dismissing outright such damning evidence, diehard Duterte supporters in the Senate may have to consider their possible loss of credibility before a national constituency. Recent surveys by different pollsters have shown that corruption has become one of the top three concerns of Filipinos.
While refusing to participate in the hearings of the House justice committee, the VP’s lawyers have announced that they would “definitely” participate in the Senate trial, even as they continue to challenge in court the constitutionality of the impeachment.
The VP’s supporters have always said they expect her to get a fair shake at the Senate, unlike at the House, which remains packed with administration allies.
Even Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, who belongs to the current Senate majority, had told me that convicting and ousting the VP in an impeachment trial could prove harder in the 20th Congress.
This is if we would go mainly by the political alliances in the Senate. Gatchalian had pointed out to me on The STAR’s online show “Truth on the Line” that the May 2025 elections increased the number of pro-Duterte senators. But this was before the House hearings got underway and the AMLC report and SALNs were presented.
* * *
Gatchalian, like several other senators, stressed that he and his colleagues aren’t making prejudgments, and would of course evaluate the evidence presented by House prosecutors.
As we have seen in previous impeachments, the process at the House is a political numbers game. But it hasn’t been the case at the Senate, once a trial gets underway and evidence is presented.
In the case of the first impeachment of VP Sara, it never got to trial; her allies made sure of that, and the Supreme Court delivered the final blow. With the House unable to present its case to the nation, the senators could not be accused of ignoring any damning evidence.
The SC recently provided its own definition of the constitutional mandate to proceed with a Senate trial “forthwith” upon transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment by the House. “Forthwith” doesn’t mean beginning the trial immediately, the SC ruled, but within a “reasonable time” before going to trial.
“Reasonable time” is even more subjective or open to different interpretations than “forthwith.” If the SC argues that the word warrants a legal interpretation, retired SC Justice Adolf Azcuna, one of the framers of the Constitution who wrote that line, has said “forthwith” in the Charter means “agad-agad” or now na.
With this latest ruling, the SC has just added another layer of confusion to the interpretation of the constitutional provision on conducting an impeachment trial forthwith.
Maybe SC justices thought common sense can be used to interpret “reasonable.” But in many aspects of the 1987 Charter, the biggest mistake of its framers is trusting too much in common sense and the good sense of politicians entrusted with carrying out constitutional provisions.
The framers of the Constitution should have used “immediately” or ASAP instead of the poetic forthwith, but dwelling on what ifs is useless.
At least Senate President Tito Sotto has assured the public that if the House submitted the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate trial would proceed the following day.
* * *
While publicly exuding confidence that the VP will survive an impeachment trial, her camp is surely preparing for the worst.
One option for her is to resign rather than risk conviction and ouster by the Senate impeachment court. Resignation will spare her from perpetual disqualification from public office, allowing her to seek the presidency in 2028.
The Marcos administration may try to stop this, by pursuing her conviction for graft-related offenses before the Sandiganbayan. But a final conviction is needed to prevent VP Sara from seeking elective office in 2028.
Considering the usual glacial pace of the justice system, that final conviction – which must be handed down by the Supreme Court – could take a decade. If she wins the presidency in 2028, her six-year term could be over before the SC affirms any conviction with finality.
By that time, she would have exacted revenge on the Marcos-Romualdez clan. To avenge her father, who looks like he will be spending the remainder of his life at the Scheveningen Prison in The Hague, Inday Sara could make good on her threat to have the remains of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. exhumed from the Libingan ng Bayani and tossed into the West Philippine Sea.
That P200 billion estate tax would have to be paid, with accrued interest. BBM’s favorite cousin Martin plus his aides would land behind bars, without bail, in a facility that’s unlikely to feature the modern, relatively humane amenities of the Dutch prison.
More than surviving an impeachment trial, the VP knows she must win power in 2028. The fate of her clan depends on it.