Funds, Feuds, and Fallen Trust: Sara Duterte’s Impeachment Saga Exposes Philippine Democracy’s Decay

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — April 29, 2025

WHEN the second-highest official in the land spits on transparency and mocks accountability, democracy itself starts to buckle. Vice President Sara Duterte’s stonewalling over P125 million in secret funds—and her impeachment at the hands of a Marcos-dominated House—lays bare the brutal dynastic war now engulfing Philippine politics. This analysis cuts through the lies, the ghost transactions, and the constitutional wreckage to offer a path back to public trust.

I. Legal Reckoning: Duterte’s Defiance Meets Constitutional Fire

A. Confidential Funds Fiasco: A Middle Finger to Accountability

Duterte’s refusal to justify P125 million in confidential funds, spent in a mere 11 days, flouts legal and constitutional mandates. The COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 2015-001 restricts such funds to surveillance or intelligence for national security, explicitly barring expenditures like P3.5 million for furniture or office equipment. Allegations of P254.8 million disbursed to 1,322 fictitious beneficiaries and P43.2 million in ghost transactions implicate RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), which penalizes misuse of public funds, and RA 7080 (Plunder), as amounts exceed P50 million.

Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution lists betrayal of public trust as an impeachable offense. Duterte’s “none-of-your-business” stance echoes the concealment condemned in Corona v. Senate (G.R. No. 200242, 2012), where the Supreme Court equated non-disclosure with unfitness for office. Likewise, Belgica v. Ochoa (G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493, and 209251, November 19, 2013) mandates transparent fund accounting. Duterte’s defiance—reiterated in press briefings and dismissive retorts to Congress—brands her as constitutionally illiterate to critics, though loyalists see her as a victim of political witch-hunts.

Her alleged distribution of P12,000–P50,000 cash envelopes to DepEd officials violates Section 3(b) of RA 3019 and Section 7(d) of RA 6713, prohibiting gifts that influence official duties. These acts, if substantiated, solidify betrayal of trust as an impeachment ground.

B. Impeachment Under Siege: Procedural Cracks in the Facade

The House’s February 5, 2025, impeachment, backed by 215 signatures, satisfies Article XI, Section 3(2)’s one-third threshold (103 of 306 members). Yet, Duterte’s Supreme Court petition alleges a violation of Section 3(5)’s one-year bar, claiming the House “banked” three prior complaints before filing a fourth. Francisco v. House (G.R. No. 160261, 2003) grants the Court authority to review grave abuse, but Gutierrez v. House (G.R. No. 193459, 2011) limits intervention to constitutional breaches. Proof of deliberate freezing could nullify the complaint, though the Court may hesitate amid political heat.

Due process concerns persist. Gutierrez v. House (G.R. No. 193459, 2011) mandates notification and response opportunities, which Duterte claims were bypassed. The Senate’s delay until July 2025, post-midterms, risks perceptions of electoral rigging, as Marcos-backed senators could secure the two-thirds majority needed for conviction.

C. Ethical Abyss: A Vice President’s Fall from Grace

Duterte’s stonewalling violates Section 4 of RA 6713, mandating transparency, while her rhetoric—claiming Tingog party-list is “owned” by Romualdez and urging a boycott—breaches Section 4(c)’s call for professionalism. Such conduct, coupled with alleged gift-giving, paints a damning picture of ethical decay, tarnishing the vice presidency’s stature.

II. Political Inferno: Dynasties Clash, Democracy Burns

A. Marcos vs. Duterte: UniTeam’s Bloody Divorce

The impeachment is a proxy war in the Marcos-Duterte feud. The UniTeam’s 2022 alliance imploded over policy splits—Marcos’s pro-U.S. tilt versus Duterte’s pro-China leanings—and personal animosities, with Romualdez as Marcos’s battering ram. Duterte’s 2028 presidential ambitions threaten Marcos’s dynasty, making impeachment a surgical strike. Romualdez’s 215 signatures showcase his House dominance, but the Senate’s post-midterm composition will decide her fate. Estrada v. Desierto (G.R. No. 146710-15, 2001) warns against politicized impeachment, yet this saga reeks of vendetta.

B. Institutions in Tatters: Governance by Gang Fight

The House risks becoming Marcos’s lapdog, shredding its credibility if seen as a rubber stamp. The Senate’s July 2025 trial delay fuels suspicions of midterm manipulation, as Marcos could gain a convicting majority. Public trust erodes as Duterte’s boycott call and Acidre’s “arrogance” jab deepen polarization. X posts reveal a fractured nation: Duterte’s base cries persecution, while Marcos allies slam her opacity. Unchecked, this feud normalizes governance by clan warfare.

III. Battle Plan: Rescuing Democracy from the Brink

A. For Duterte: Come Clean or Crash

Duterte must release a partial COA audit, within legal limits, to counter graft claims. Abandoning inflammatory rhetoric and focusing on her Supreme Court petition—emphasizing the one-year bar and due process—would project integrity over defiance.

B. For Congress: Reform or Rot

The House must ensure due process in impeachment, avoiding Corona-style circuses. A Confidential Funds Reform Act, mandating quarterly COA reports, would curb abuse. The Senate should expedite the trial to avoid midterm taint.

C. For the Supreme Court: Be the Firewall

The Court must swiftly rule on Duterte’s certiorari petition, invoking Francisco to check House overreach while respecting impeachment’s political nature. Clarifying the one-year bar would set a constitutional precedent.

D. For Media/Civil Society: Shine the Light

Media should file FOI requests for COA’s full audit, exposing fund misuse. Civil society must track midterm candidates’ Marcos-Duterte ties, urging voters to prioritize accountability over dynastic loyalty.

IV. Final Warning: The Circus Must End

Sara Duterte’s refusal to justify P125 million in confidential funds, her impeachment, and the Marcos-Duterte feud expose Philippine democracy’s decay. Legally, her defiance violates RA 6713, RA 3019, and constitutional trust, echoed in Corona and Belgica. Procedurally, the House’s haste and Senate’s delay invite judicial review, guided by Francisco. Politically, this proxy war risks institutional collapse, with the 2025 midterms as a battleground. Duterte’s arrogance and the House’s vendetta fuel the fire. Unless institutions prioritize accountability over clan warfare, the impeachment circus will become the new normal.