Impeachment trial, criminal raps cloud VP’s 2028 presidential bid

VICE-PRESIDENT (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio is facing mounting legal and political challenges that could undermine her 2028 presidential bid as her impeachment trial and a separate criminal case raise the risk of her removal or disqualification from public office, analysts said. The two proceedings have made her path to the presidency more complicated, GlobalSource Partners analysts Diwa C. Guinigundo and Wilhelmina C. Manalac said in a report dated Sept. 22. “The outcome of either proceeding could materially alter her political future,” it said. Ms. Duterte is on trial before the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, over alleged culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption involving confidential and public funds, unexplained wealth, bribery, betrayal of public trust, and threats against top government officials. She had denied all charges. The proceedings have put her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth under scrutiny, revealing Ms. Duterte kept board positions in several private companies even as she assumed her post as Vice-President. Analysts said this “could reinforce one of the central impeachment allegations involving culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.” They also noted that “the issue is no longer simply whether she can survive the impeachment proceeding politically,” as the trial places allegations under public scrutiny that could affect both her eligibility for future public office and her political standing. Compounding her legal challenges, a Quezon City regional trial court on Sept. 4 issued an arrest warrant against Ms. Duterte for three counts of grave threats. Ms. Duterte posted P360,000 in bail to lift the arrest warrant. The criminal case arose from statements made during an online press conference in November 2024, where Ms. Duterte said she had arranged for someone to assassinate President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., First Lady Marie Louise “Liza” Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez if she herself were killed. Ms. Duterte had said her remarks were not genuine threats and were just expression of concern for her own safety. Her legal team stated that she intends to exhaust all available legal remedies and has no intention of evading the law, while Ms. Duterte described the prosecution as politically motivated. The impeachment trial and criminal prosecution are separate proceedings subject to different legal standards, GlobalSource said, meaning the criminal prosecution would continue independently regardless of the impeachment court’s verdict. “An actual criminal conviction and imprisonment would become an unavoidable part of the public record surrounding any future attempt to seek the presidency,” it said. VOTE THRESHOLD Meanwhile, the House prosecution panel on Thursday said the Senate impeachment court’s ruling on the voting threshold did not alter the Constitution’s requirement of a two-thirds vote for conviction, while arguing that any challenge before the Supreme Court would be premature. Batangas Rep. Gerville R. Luistro, lead prosecutor, said in a press briefing that the impeachment court merely clarified which senator-judges should be counted when determining the two-thirds threshold, particularly those who are legally and factually qualified to participate when judgment is rendered. The Senate impeachment court earlier ruled that “all members of the Senate” refers to senators who remain legally and factually capable of participating when the court votes on the impeachment case. The ruling excludes senators who are detained, suspended or otherwise legally constrained, physically or medically incapacitated, in hiding, outside the Senate’s coercive power or similarly situated. The clarification could affect the number of votes needed for both conviction and acquittal, depending on how many senator-judges are eligible to vote when judgement is rendered, Ms. Luistro said. “If there are only 20 senator-judges available to vote, the number required for conviction would be 14,” she said. “But remember, the acquittal needs only seven.” With all 24 senators participating, she said, 16 votes would be needed for conviction and nine for acquittal. Ms. Luistro also said a petition challenging the ruling before the Supreme Court is not yet ripe because the impeachment court has yet to render a final vote on Ms. Duterte’s case. She said the key issue would be whether a party had already suffered an actual injury from the ruling. The impeachment court voted 13-1 on the threshold issue, with six senator-judges not participating. Ms. Luistro said the number of senator-judges eligible to vote could still change before the court reaches its judgment, making a challenge at this stage premature. She nevertheless acknowledged that Ms. Duterte and her allies could seek judicial review if they choose. “It is the right of every Filipino to avail of the remedies available, especially in the Supreme Court,” she said in mixed English and Filipino. “No one can stop them, and even the prosecution should not stop them.” Christian S. Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, also affirmed the Senate impeachment court’s ruling, noting that public officials with pending cases under Republic Act No. 7080, the Anti-Plunder Act, are legally suspended from office. “They are correct [in that] the denominator can be changed, and therefore, the numerator. The one that cannot be changed is the two-thirds,” Mr. Monsod said during an interview with One News on Wednesday. Concerns regarding the impeachment court’s decision to forgo a fixed 16-vote requirement remain. Defense spokesperson Michael Wesley T. Poa on Wednesday said the mid-trial change compromises any verdict. Ms. Duterte’s lead defense counsel Sheila C. Sison also said they may raise the issue to the Supreme Court. However, Mr. Monsod emphasized that an impeachment trial is not a judicial one, cautioning against the involvement of the Supreme Court. “The point of an impeachment is to protect the people, so the question is what is the process by which the people can be protected by government officials who betray the public trust,” he said. He also consulted with other living Constitution framers, namely Edmundo “Ed” Guidote Garcia, Felicitas S. Aquino-Arroyo, Florangel R. Braid and Rene V. Sarmiento—all agreed that the court’s decision is fair. “We could not have foreseen everything while we were writing the constitution,” Mr. Monsod said. The only thing that we changed really was the two-thirds vote, but the sentiment was that it should be a little easier to convict, so we changed three-fourths to two-thirds” – Erika Mae P. Sinaking, Pexcel John Bacon and Francessca S. Abalos