MARCH 17, 2026 — Vice President Sara Duterte has formally responded to two impeachment complaints filed against her, but her “answer with caution” signals a refusal to fully recognize the House’s jurisdiction. This move has stirred debate, raising questions about accountability, political maneuvering, and the future of impeachment as a constitutional safeguard.

Duterte submitted a 15-page “consolidated verified answer ad cautelam” to the House justice committee, essentially saying she was complying with the deadline but not conceding jurisdiction. Her defense team, led by spokesman Michael Poa, argued that the complaints were built on “conjectures, speculations and bare conclusions of fact and law.”

Critics, however, weren’t impressed. Rep. Terry Ridon noted that Duterte’s filing “fails to squarely address the allegations contained in the two impeachment complaints.” Instead of tackling the charges head-on, she questioned the validity of the proceedings themselves.

The complaints that survived

Out of four impeachment complaints filed earlier this year, two survived the House’s initial scrutiny. One was set aside due to the one-year bar rule, while another was withdrawn by its complainants to avoid procedural delays. The remaining two — endorsed by lawmakers and deemed sufficient in form — are now under review.

These complaints accuse Duterte of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, echoing earlier charges that were previously dismissed.

Political stakes and party lines

The National Unity Party (NUP) has taken a cautious stance, saying it will only support impeachment if the evidence is “specific, credible, direct” and corroborated by whistleblower testimony. House Deputy Speaker Ronaldo Puno stressed that impeachment must withstand “the scrutiny of a full trial.”

This reflects a broader hesitation among lawmakers: impeachment is not just about accusations, but about building a case strong enough to survive both legal and political tests.

For us, the spectacle of impeachment is more than just political theater. It’s about whether leaders can be held accountable in a system often criticized for protecting the powerful. Duterte’s refusal to fully recognize the House’s jurisdiction raises doubts. Is this a clever legal maneuver, or a dangerous precedent that weakens constitutional checks?

So we can’t help but wonder whether impeachment will be a genuine test of accountability or another exercise in political survival.

And if impeachment is meant to protect the people from leaders who betray their trust, what happens when the leader refuses to play by the rules?

(Image: Inday Sara Duterte | Facebook)