For the first time in the country’s history, the two highest officials – President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte – are facing two fresh impeachment complaints each before the House of Representatives.
“This is the first time this has happened and this will really have an impact on our country. The first impact will be on succession. If they are both removed, the Senate President will be the successor,” former law dean Mel Sta. Maria said in an interview with Bilyonaryo News Channel.
“There is also an impact on the economy – every time there is an impeachment, our investors become uneasy. They go on a waiting game mode, they are cautious. When politics is unstable, it can have an effect on the economy.”
“At the practical level, there will also be an impact. Legislators will spend time hearing the impeachment cases instead of performing their duties and passing laws. At the political level, the legitimacy of our government – the two highest officials are facing cases. Our reputation before the international community is at stake – Is the Philippine democracy still immature?” Sta. Maria added.
Civil society leaders and members of a left-wing coalition yesterday filed impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte, restarting a process sidelined by the Supreme Court last year.
Both cases accused Duterte of misusing public funds during her term as education secretary, while one revived allegations that she threatened to assassinate her former ally, Mr. Marcos.
The militant group Bayan filed the first complaint against Duterte which was endorsed by the Makabayan bloc, while civil society and religious groups lodged the second one that was endorsed by Akbayan party-list Rep. Perci Cendaña and Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima.
The filings came on the same day the House Committee on Justice declared sufficient in form the two impeachment complaints filed against President Marcos, clearing the way for the panel to determine whether the cases are sufficient in substance.
The first complaint, filed January 19, 2026, was lodged by lawyer Andre De Jesus and endorsed by House Deputy Minority Leader and Pusong Pinoy party-list Rep. Jernie Jett Nisay. The committee voted 46-1 finding the complaint sufficient in form.
The second complaint, filed January 26, 2026, was submitted by a group of activists and private individuals led by Liza Maza, Teodoro Casiño, Renato Reyes Jr., lawyer Neri Colmenares and labor leader Ronaldo Adonis, among others. The House justice panel voted 35-9- voting on the complaint sufficient in form.
Duterte’s lawyer Michael Poa said the filing of the impeachment complaints against the Vice President comes as “no surprise.”
“We are prepared to confront these allegations squarely through the proper constitutional processes, confident that a fair and impartial review will demonstrate that the accusations are devoid of both factual and legal basis,” Poa said.
Duterte was successfully impeached by the House last year on similar charges brought by a group backed by De Lima and other lawmakers.
An abortive Senate trial that followed saw the case being kicked back to the House while questioning its constitutionality.
The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the impeachment was a violation of a constitutional rule against multiple complaints being filed in the same year. The court upheld its ruling last week.
The new impeachment complaint against the Vice President included an affidavit from detainee Ramil Madriaga, who claimed to be Duterte’s former aide.
“Madriaga’s testimony warrants a full investigation. His statements corroborate our worst fears about the Vice-President’s spending of public funds for personal use. Therefore, it becomes the solemn duty of citizens and public officials alike to seek accountability,” said one of the petitioners, Tindig Pilipinas co-convenor Kiko Aquino Dee.
Malacañang on Monday said it has no role in the filing of two new impeachment complaints against the Vice President, saying the matter rests solely with Congress and noting that the allegations raised no substantially new issues.
“I believe they are the same, almost the same allegations made even before when the first impeachment complaint was filed,” Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro said.
“We are not responsible for the filing of those complaints or impeachment complaints. So, it’s up to the Congress to evaluate and decide with regard to the subject matter,” she added.
As for the impeachment bids against the President, Castro said the Palace is observing due process following the House committee’s decision to declare them sufficient in form.
“That’s the process. We have to respect that,” Castro said. “The President himself said that he knows he did nothing wrong, that he did not violate the law, and that he did not commit any impeachable offense.”
Meanwhile, leaders of the House justice committee noted the confusion arising from the recent Supreme Court issuances on the one-year bar in the impeachment of the Vice President, citing differing reckoning dates in the high tribunal’s decision and a subsequent resolution.
House Committee on Justice vice chair Ysabel Maria Zamora of San Juan pointed to the SC’s July 2025 decision, which stated that the one-year prohibition begins on February 5, and contrasted it with a January 29, 2026 resolution that altered how a “session day” is counted.
“The Supreme Court declared that the one-year bar begins on Feb. 5. Now why is there confusion? Because in the resolution recently issued, the Supreme Court changed the counting, the reckoning, the counting of the term session day,” Zamora said.
Zamora noted that under the earlier decision, a session day could span more than one calendar day, but the latest resolution declared that, for impeachment purposes, a session day is equivalent to a calendar day.
“So now the timeline made by the Supreme Court has been adjusted. Again, in their decision with all due respect to the Supreme Court, what is written in the decision is different, what is written in the resolution is different. That’s the confusion,” she said.
