MANILA, Philippines – Instead of issuing point-by-point rebuttals to the alleged offenses cited in the impeachment complaints against her, Vice President Sara Duterte questioned what she described as “double standards” by the House of Representatives in how her case was handled compared with that of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Duterte filed her verified answer to the two impeachment complaints against her on Monday, March 16, the last day she could submit her response.

She said that the House justice committee “went beyond the four corners of the complaint and relied on extraneous considerations that are irrelevant” when it dismissed the complaints against Marcos, even though there were “serious allegations revolving around misuse and corruption of billions of public funds” hurled at the President.

Marcos survived his impeachment case after only a three-day deliberation by the House justice committee, which junked the complaints against him for supposed insufficiency in substance. Complainants tried to oust him from office over his alleged involvement in the public works kickback scheme.

Duterte said that in her case, the committee treated the allegations against her as “established truth even before trial begins.”

She insisted that the notice of disallowance slapped by the Commission on Audit against her office over her P73 million in confidential expenses is still subject to appeal, and that the allegations made by her former employee Ramil Madriaga in his sworn affidavit were “unsubstantiated” and “cannot be accorded evidentiary weight.”

One of the key offenses cited in the impeachment complaints against Duterte is her alleged misuse of public funds. Madriaga is seen as a potential key witness, after claiming that he had coordinated with Duterte’s security officers to transport wads of cash to numerous individuals.

Play Video

No ultimate facts?

Duterte also insisted that the complaints offered only “bare conclusions of fact and law,” instead of “ultimate facts.”

The House rules handbook says that a complaint is deemed sufficient in substance if “there is a recital of facts constituting the offense charged.”

Duterte argued that neither of the two complaints proved that she amassed ill-gotten wealth, bribed government officials, or contracted someone to kill the President.

“Aside from self-serving assertions and sweeping legal conclusions, the impeachment complaints contain nothing anchored in any concrete, established facts or supported by law. They are plainly insufficient to sustain the accusations they purport to advance against the Vice President,” her response read.

Just like last year

Duterte’s answer to the impeachment complaints in the House justice committee mirrors how she responded to the impeachment court during her first impeachment battle in 2025 — by challenging the way the House conducted its proceedings instead of directly answering the allegations.

House justice committee member Terry Ridon pointed this out in his statement Monday night, while insisting that Duterte’s right to due process was not violated.

“A plain reading of the complaints and supporting documentation clearly establishes ultimate facts relating to the misuse of confidential funds; the issuance of death threats against the President, the First Lady, and the former speaker of the House; and unexplained wealth and violations of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth requirements,” Ridon said.

“These allegations go to the very heart of public accountability and constitutional responsibility,” he added.

In 2025, Duterte said the accusations against her were unsubstantiated, that the proceedings cannot carry over from the 19th to the 20th Congress, and that her impeachment violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court later sided with her and declared her impeachment unconstitutional.

What happens next

Based on House rules, the complainants have three days from receipt of Duterte’s answer to file their reply, after which Duterte may file a rejoinder.

After this back-and-forth, the justice committee will determine whether the complaints allege sufficient grounds for impeachment.

If they pass that test, the panel will hold public hearings to hear the evidence and the witnesses. Ridon previously said this may take place on April 18. – Rappler.com