This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

IMPEACH. Members of student and youth organizations, led by Anakbayan, rip a copy of the Supreme Court decision declaring the impeachment of Sara Duterte unconstitutional, during a protest in front of the SC on August 5, 2025.

The three impeachment complaints filed against Vice President Sara Duterte may be different in style, but they echo each other?s arguments on why she deserves to be removed from public office.

Rappler enumerates the key arguments in the three following petitions:

Cited in: First, second, and third impeachment complaints

Duterte is facing allegations that she misused P612.5 million in confidential funds within her first 18 months in office — P500 million for the Office of the Vice President (OVP), and P112.5 million for the Department of Education (DepEd).

The P500 million for the OVP includes P125 million that was exhausted within 11 days in December 2022. The Commission on Audit (COA) later disallowed P73 million from that spending.

All complaints cited the House testimony of OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta and DepEd Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) Edward Fajarda, who said that upon the Vice President?s instructions, they turned over the confidential funds to her security officers.

The refiled complaints also now mention Ramil Madriaga, a former aide of the Vice President who claimed in his sworn affidavit that upon her instructions, he had worked with Duterte?s security officers (particularly colonels Dennis Nolasco and Raymund Dante Lachica) in transporting large sums of money to several persons.

Cited in: First, second, and third impeachment complaints

Respondents flagged the supposed false attestations in the certifications she signed to liquidate her confidential expenses before the COA.

These include the thousands of acknowledgment receipts that supposedly bore fabricated names, such as the infamous ?Mary Grace Piattos.?

The second complaint pointed out that out of 1,992 names of recipients of confidential funds, at least 1,322 did not have birth records with the Philippine Statistics Authority.

The third complaint believes Duterte had to fabricate evidence after COA flagged in September 2023 the first reports submitted by the OVP for lack of acknowledgment receipts.

?The truth is quite straightforward. VP Sara did not carry out legitimate activities with the confidential funds. She misappropriated them for herself. Thus, the OVP could not submit (acknowledgment receipts) when it liquidated the confidential funds for the first time,? the third complaint also read.

Cited in: Second, third impeachment complaints

Duterte is being accused of bribing DepEd subordinates during her time as education secretary.

This allegation is based on the House testimonies of:

Cited in: First impeachment complaint

The first complaint pointed out that Duterte refused to recognize congressional oversight during budget deliberations.

The few times she attended deliberations on her office?s proposed budget for the succeeding year, Duterte offered non-answers, such as:

The first complaint also took note of her absences during plenary budget deliberations without prior notice, and even her refusal to cooperate in the inquiry of the House good government committee into her alleged misuse of public funds.

The complainants said her actions are tantamount to dereliction of official duty.

Cited in: Second, third impeachment complaints

The complainants flagged alleged irregularities in the bank transactions of Vice President Sara Duterte, based on documents obtained by former senator Antonio Trillanes IV in 2016.

They wonder how Duterte, who had been a local official in Davao City for the most part between 2007 and 2022, and only had an estimated annual income of P2 million, managed to substantially grow her net worth, from P13 million in 2007 to P44 million in 2017.

The complainants also sounded the alarm over the reported P111 billion in her bank account transactions between 2016 and 2015, which were supposedly grossly disproportionate to her salary as a public official.

Cited in: Second, third impeachment complaints

In November 2024, a distraught Duterte said in a Zoom interview while locking herself inside the Batasang Pambansa that she had hired an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and then-House speaker Martin Romualdez if something bad were to happen to her. She also categorically stated that she was not joking.

The statement came weeks after admitting she had imagined beheading the President.

The third complaint called her actions a ?classic example of tyranny,? while the second complaint argued that her words are seditious and an act of terrorism.

Cited in: Second impeachment complaint

The second complaint cites the testimony by former Davao Death Squad assassin and now-International Criminal Court witness Arturo Lascañas which implicated the Vice President in the extrajudicial killings in her hometown.

Lascañas had said that Duterte green-lit the continuation of the killings during her time as mayor of Davao City,

The second complainant argued that this makes Duterte liable for the high crime of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. – Rappler.com

Share in Chat Share article Facebook X (Twitter) Copy Link Copied How does this make you feel?

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+