HOME > INQUIRER > Article

Text Size

small

medium

large

A test of accountability: The legal foundations of Sara Duterte’s impeachment case

A test of accountability: The legal foundations of Sara Duterte’s impeachment case

Provided by INQUIRER.net.

A test of accountability: The legal foundations of Sara Duterte’s impeachment case
VP Sara Duterte impeachment composite image from Inquirer files



MANILA, Philippines—As the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte draws nearer, much of the public’s attention remains drawn to political alignments and numbers.

 

But at the heart of the case are critical questions about the Constitution—and whether the country’s democratic institutions can hold one of the highest officials in government accountable for alleged wrongdoing.

 

“Impeachment is not only a means of securing accountability of the highest public officers but also a test for our Democracy,” said Atty. Darwin Angeles, a senior lecturer at the UP College of Law and the De La Salle University Tañada-Diokno School of Law.

 

“The disposition of this impeachment proceeding is a seminal moment by which our present democratic institutions will be judged by history,” he added.

 

READ: A reckoning at the top: The impeachment case against Sara Duterte

 

Angeles outlined the constitutional standards that apply to each charge lodged against Duterte—including culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes—as the Senate prepares to try the case in June 2025.

 

The case at a glance


 

The impeachment complaint, filed in December 2024 and endorsed by over 215 House lawmakers, accuses Duterte of misusing ₱125 million in confidential funds in 2022 without an express appropriation in the national budget. She is also alleged to have red-tagged teachers’ organizations while concurrently serving as Secretary of Education.

 

READ: Sara Duterte impeached; House gets 215 to sign

 

A test of accountability: The legal foundations of Sara Duterte’s impeachment case



 

The case is now pending before the Senate impeachment court and is widely expected to have lasting implications for the use of confidential funds in public office.

 

What counts as a “culpable violation of the Constitution”?


 

According to Atty. Angeles, three elements must be present for this charge:

 

“a. The impeachable officer committed a violation of the Constitution;

b. In committing the violation, the impeachable officer acted in his/her official capacity or utilized his powers; and

c. The violation by the impeachable officer was committed willfully and intentionally (as against unintentional, involuntary, good faith or honest mistakes of judgment).”

 

Angeles added that element (b) is supported by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bote v. San Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc. (2020), which held that acts done in a private capacity—even if questionable—are not grounds for constitutional violation if not committed through official powers.

 

As for intent, Angeles pointed to the 2018 dissent of then-Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio in Republic v. Chief Justice Sereno, where Carpio wrote:

 

“Culpable violation of the Constitution must be understood to mean willful and intentional violation of the Constitution and not violations committed unintentionally or involuntarily or in good faith or through an honest mistake of judgment.”

 

Angeles agreed with this interpretation, saying, “Justice Carpio’s view is correct considering that it aligns with the intent of the framers of the Constitution.”

 

The role of confidential funds


 

Angeles declined to give a definitive legal opinion on whether the disbursement of confidential funds by the OVP in 2022 qualifies as a culpable violation or betrayal of public trust, citing the sub judice rule due to ongoing Supreme Court proceedings and the pending Senate trial.

 

However, he clarified:

 

“Public funds appropriated for a particular purpose cannot be diverted, utilized or spent for a different purpose than originally contemplated. A public officer committing this act can be criminally prosecuted for technical malversation of public funds penalized under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.”

 

The Commission on Audit (COA) earlier flagged parts of the OVP’s confidential fund usage, which may factor into the Senate’s assessment.

 

What is “betrayal of public trust”?


 

Unlike criminal offenses, betrayal of public trust deals with actions that reflect dishonesty or bad faith, even if they’re not technically illegal.

 

Angeles explained:

 

“Betrayal of public trust is a ground for impeachment that is ‘broad enough to cover any violation of the oath of office’. It is a ‘catch-all phrase’ that refers to ‘all acts not punishable by statutes as penal offenses but, nonetheless, render the officer unfit to continue in office’.”

 

This comes from the 2012 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales III v. Office of the President.

 

“My opinion is that proof of actual damage or malice is not required,” Angeles said. “What is required is ‘bad faith’ which is a standard that is distinct from actual damage. Further, ‘bad faith’ is a relatively lower standard compared to malice.”

 

In short, a public official may be found guilty of betrayal of public trust if their actions, while not criminal, show disregard for the public good and the Constitution.

 

Red-tagging and “other high crimes”


 

Angeles was cautious in responding to allegations that Duterte red-tagged teachers' organizations, again invoking the sub judice rule. However, he clarified the legal standard that applies:

 

“Based on the definition of betrayal of public trust that I have quoted above, the standard of whether such act may be considered as ‘betrayal of public trust’ will depend on whether the alleged act of red-tagging was committed with ‘bad faith’ which can mean that the act was committed with ‘fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will’.”

 

As for the charge of “other high crimes,” Angeles explained:

 

“My understanding of this is that this contemplates serious or heinous crimes that are punished severely under Philippine criminal law. This can include rape, bribery, murder, torture, human trafficking, sale of illegal drugs, robbery, kidnapping (or serious illegal detention) or similar criminal offences that Philippine criminal law punishes with the highest penalties available, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.”

 

Whether Duterte’s alleged acts meet this threshold is a question only the Senate can answer during trial.

 

How impeachment works in Congress


 

Angeles outlined the process clearly. A complaint can either go through House hearings or be sent straight to the Senate if endorsed by at least one-third of all House members, as in this case.

 

READ: Explainer: What happens when the VP is impeached?

 

A test of accountability: The legal foundations of Sara Duterte’s impeachment case



 

“Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has exclusive jurisdiction to initiate impeachment proceedings... The procedure outlined applies to verified impeachment complaints filed by a member of the House of Representatives or by a citizen which endorsed by member of the House of Representatives,” said Angeles.

 

“It does not apply to a verified impeachment complaint that is signed by at least 1/3 members of the House of Representatives because under the House Rules of Procedure and the Constitution, the minimum requirement to initiate and endorse impeachment proceedings with the Senate is a vote of at least 1/3 members of the House of Representatives. This is supported by precedent during the impeachment of the former Chief Justice Renato Corona,” he continued.

 

The Senate is expected to begin trial proceedings by June 2, 2025, with a possible verdict by October.

 

Why this case matters


 

Beyond Duterte’s fate, Angeles said the outcome of the trial will likely set a long-term precedent on how confidential and intelligence funds are used—and scrutinized—by public officials.

 

“Definitely it will set a precedent,” he said. “That is why the Constitution explicitly divided such power of removal in a bicameral legislature unlike unicameral legislatures where a vote of no confidence can be sufficient to cause the removal of a Prime Minister.”

 

As the trial nears, the case is shaping up not just as a political reckoning—but as a defining moment for the rule of law.

 

 

Graphics by Ed Lustan/Inquirer.net. Sources: INQUIRER.net news archive, 1987 Constitution

 

(2025/05/06-13:00)

INQUIRER

Page Top