House panel declares third and fourth impeachment rap vs Sara Duterte sufficient in substance

By AYIE LICSI Published Mar 04, 2026 2:44 pm

The House of Representatives Committee on Justice has deemed the third and fourth impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte sufficient in substance.

On March 4, the panel voted 54-1 on the rap filed by Fr. Saballa et al. and endorsed by ML Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima. They also decided the same on the complaint filed by Atty. Nathaniel Cabrera, and endorsed by House Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega and Manila 6th District Rep. Bienvenido Abante.

Rep. Bong Suntay, who's in hot water over his inappropriate remarks about Anne Curtis during the March 3 hearing, was the only one who voted against declaring the complaints sufficient in form.

Duterte is accused of graft and corruption while in office and of making a death threat against former ally, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. 

After this, the justice committee will proceed with the impeachment process. A notice will be issued to Duterte to file her answer to the raps within the non-extendable period of 10 days. The case will get thrown back into the plenary for final approval before becoming an article of impeachment. A vote of at least one-third among the House members is required for this.

The first impeachment complaint, endorsed by the Makabayan bloc, was set aside for violating the one-year bar rule. Meanwhile, the second, endorsed by de Lima and Akbayan Rep. Perci Cendaña, was withdrawn as it's similar to the third rap.

The impeachment complaints come after the Supreme Court declared the articles of impeachment against her as constitutional in July 2025. It affirmed this in January 2026.

In its July ruling, the SC voided an impeachment complaint against Duterte for the reason that it was transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote. They also said that the fourth impeachment complaint is barred by the one-year rule in the Constitution because there were three complaints that came ahead of it.

The high court, at the time, noted it was not absolving the VP of the charges.