The House Committee on Justice ruled on March 4, 2026, that the two impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte—filed in early February and transmitted to the Speaker's office—are sufficient in substance, voting 54-1 to advance proceedings. Duterte has 10 days to respond. Separately, she filed a perjury complaint against former intelligence officer Ramil Madriaga, whose affidavit supported the complaints.
Following the transmittal of two impeachment complaints to House Speaker Bojie Dy's office in early February 2026, the House Committee on Justice voted 54-1 on March 4 to deem them sufficient in substance, moving the case to the pleadings stage where Vice President Sara Duterte has 10 days to respond.
The complaints, filed by Rev. Fr. Joel Saballa and lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera, reiterate prior allegations of plunder, malversation, graft, and corruption tied to P612.5 million in confidential funds for the Office of the Vice President (2022-2023) and P112.5 million for the Department of Education. They also charge culpable violation of the Constitution (e.g., alleged death threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and allies), unexplained wealth, and political destabilization—echoing earlier filings but bolstered by Madriaga's affidavit.
The March 4 hearing featured heated debates: Rep. Bong Suntay challenged the threats claim for lack of proof of action, while Rep. Rufus Rodriguez questioned jurisdiction over acts from Duterte's DepEd secretary tenure. Counterarguments from Rep. Chel Diokno and others linked them to her vice presidential role. Committee Chair Rep. Joel Chua emphasized the stage only assesses sufficiency, not merits.
Concurrently, Duterte filed a perjury complaint against Ramil Madriaga—detained since July 2023 on kidnapping charges—at the Taguig City Prosecutor’s Office. Madriaga's November 29, 2025, affidavit alleged Duterte directed delivery of confidential funds to security aides and that POGO and drug money funded her 2022 campaign. Duterte denied any relationship with him, labeling the claims lies; Madriaga's camp defended the affidavit and noted the complaint's timing post-impeachment use.
No contradictions across reports.
