Angelisa L. Razo
(Delivered at the forum on “Democracy on Trial: Understanding the Impeachment Process of Vice President Sara Duterte” at the Ateneo de Davao University on 14 June 2025. The forum was organized by the University Community Engagement and Advocacy Council, Konsyensya Dabaw, and Ateneo Public Interest and Legal Advocacy).
DAVAO CITY (MindaNews / 15 June) — Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. A defense system enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, not for convenience, but for accountability. It exists precisely because we need a legitimate and structured way to hold high-ranking officials responsible for unjust and unlawful actions.
While Justice Hernando in Letters of Mrs. Corona (2021) said that public opinion plays a role in the formulation of the outcome, it is not solely reliant on it. The facts established by the evidence and the grounds and processes prescribed by the basic law, the Constitution, steer and weigh heavily in the formulation of its outcome.
It is a trial of accountability, not an act of vengeance.
Historically, impeachment had a significant role in the diminution of monarchical power in England and imperial power in American colonies. Due to that background, impeachment was considered by drafters of the Constitution to an ordinary political device, consistent with reasonable government.[1]
- The Legal Foundation: Constitution and Jurisprudence
Justice Jose P. Laurel said in Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936) that our Constitution while lacking perfection and perfectibility, “sets forth in no uncertain language the restrictions and limitations upon governmental powers and agencies. If these restrictions and limitations are transcended it would be inconceivable if the Constitution had not provided for a mechanism by which to direct the course of government along constitutional channels.” The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government.
The impeachment process is defined by the Constitution, and follows strictly the Constitution, which is the expression of the sovereignty.
- Impeachment Grounds: The Issue of Confidential Funds
Let’s talk about why these complaints were even filed.
At the center of public scrutiny is the rapid disbursement of ₱125 million in confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President in just 11 days in 2022 —spanning non-working holidays. Add to this the suspicious rental of safehouses at over PHP 1.4 million per day, disbursements to individuals later discovered to be fictitious, and conflicting liquidation documents later submitted only after COA flagged the discrepancies.
Likewise, under her tenure as Secretary of the Department of Education, PHP 112.5 million of confidential funds were spent despite DepEd being a civilian, education-based agency. The liquidation reports showed questionable acknowledgments, forged or unsigned documents, and expense justifications debunked by the very military officers they cited.
Confidential funds are not discretionary funds. They are public funds governed by strict guidelines. Where documentation is fabricated, and funds are released to nonexistent persons or spent at implausible rates, this isn’t mere accounting error—it is an assault on public trust.
These are legitimate public concerns, not political smears.
- Was there prior authority to spend those funds?
- Were they used in accordance with COA regulations?
- Were procurement processes bypassed?
These are not just fiscal questions. They touch on public trust, accountability, and constitutional integrity. When a high-ranking public official is entrusted with billions in taxpayer funds, the public has every right to ask: Where did it go, and why?
If impeachment is not the correct forum to address such potential betrayal of public trust, then what is?
- Stability of Institutions: The Myth of Destabilization
Critics say that pursuing impeachment destabilizes government. But let’s turn that around: What truly destabilizes our institutions is impunity. A culture where power is held without accountability erodes institutions far more than constitutional mechanisms ever could.
Impeachment, when properly initiated and grounded on substantive allegations, shows our democracy is alive—it holds even the highest officials accountable under law.
Moreover, it is deliberately difficult. The process involves:
- Strict form and substance evaluation,
- Hearings by the House Justice Committee,
- Trial by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court,
- A two-thirds vote requirement for conviction.
These layers are meant to weed out abuse. If the process moves forward, it means the threshold of seriousness has been met.
- Impeachment and Political Culture: What Are We Teaching Our Nation?
This is bigger than any one individual. If we allow officials to hold enormous power – including access to confidential funds – with no serious oversight, what are we telling the next generation? That as long as you win elections, you’re untouchable?
We must recognize that democracy is sustained not by silence in the face of scandal, but by the readiness of institutions to investigate and adjudicate when ethical and legal lines are crossed. Allowing impeachment to proceed sends a signal to the region and the world that the Philippines remains committed to the rule of law, that we will not sacrifice institutional integrity for the sake of political convenience.
We cannot build a culture of responsible governance if leaders are shielded from the consequences of their actions. And we cannot ask the people to believe in democracy if democracy does not hold the powerful accountable.
This moment is therefore not just a legal or political test—it is a test of our democratic maturity. If we rise to meet it with due process, transparency, and resolve, we strengthen our Republic. If we retreat in fear or factional interest, we weaken the very institutions meant to protect the nation.
- Why Impeachment, Not Just Prosecution
Some, particularly the sitting Senator Imee Marcos, ask: Why not just file criminal charges and wait for the courts to decide?
In fact, criminal and administrative complaints have already been filed. As of June 2025, at least two criminal complaints and one administrative complaint have been lodged against Vice President Sara Duterte before the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice. These cases are based on the alleged misuse and malversation of over ₱612 million in confidential funds during her tenure in the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education. The complaints cite multiple violations including technical malversation, falsification of public documents, and grave misconduct.
However, while these are important legal efforts, they are not substitutes for impeachment. The existence of pending cases only reinforces the need for an impeachment trial, which addresses political accountability in real time and provides a constitutional remedy for serious misconduct committed while in office.
It’s true—the Vice President is not immune from suit. Under our legal system, unlike the President, other impeachable officers like the Vice President may face criminal proceedings even while in office. However, this does not make impeachment unnecessary—it makes it more urgent.
Impeachment addresses a different and more immediate objective: political accountability. While criminal cases determine legal guilt and may take years to conclude, impeachment is a constitutional remedy to protect the public from officials who betray the public trust or abuse power while still holding office.
It ensures that serious misconduct is examined in a timely, public, and institutional manner. It removes the official from office when warranted, rather than waiting for the end of the term or for slow-moving judicial outcomes. It prevents further misuse of public resources and institutional damage.
In short, impeachment and prosecution are not mutually exclusive. One addresses political accountability; the other, criminal liability. Impeachment does not foreclose prosecution—it complements it. But only impeachment has the constitutional force to say: enough is enough, now.
Moreover, impeachment serves a vital democratic function. It puts the nation on record. It says: This behavior is intolerable. This conduct offends our values. And this system still works.
It is not just about legal accountability—it is about moral leadership, public trust, and preserving the credibility of government institutions.
That is why impeachment must proceed—because the Constitution demands it, the public deserves it, and democracy depends on it.
- Conclusion: This Is Not Just About VP Sara
Let me end where I began.
This is not a political circus. This is not a partisan game.
It is a constitutional process that reflects the public’s demand for accountability, transparency, and integrity. When evidence is presented that a sitting Vice President misused confidential funds, ignored procurement safeguards, falsified documents, and violated budgetary rules – the constitutional mechanism must respond.
Because in the end, this is not about Vice President Sara Duterte. It’s about the strength of our democratic institutions, and whether they are capable of correcting their own.
Let us not be afraid of accountability. Let us not demonize the Constitution for working the way it was designed to.
Let the Senate convene. Let the evidence speak. Let the truth be known.
Thank you, and may truth and justice prevail.
[MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Angelisa L. Razo, Ll.M., is a lawyer and law professor with two decades of experience in legal advocacy and education. She earned her Juris Doctor from Ateneo de Davao University and her Master of Laws from San Beda University. Her work focuses on environmental law, agrarian reform, land rights, and gender justice. She teaches at several law schools in Mindanao and is actively engaged in community-based legal aid and continuing legal education. She is a member of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), the Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM), and the Rotary Club of Tagum Golden Laces (RCTGL), and continues to support grassroots initiatives through civic and nonprofit work].
[1] Neumann, Richard Jr., K. (2007) The Revival of Impeachment as a Partisan Political Weapon. Maurice A. Deane School of Law of Hofsfra University.