Davao Lawyers Warn of a 2028 Gambit: Can Duterte’s Trial Survive Delay Tactics?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 17, 2025

Introduction: A Constitutional Conspiracy or Democracy’s Breaking Point?

The impeachment of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte is a legal powder keg, teetering between justice and political sabotage. The Senate’s audacious remand of impeachment articles to the House, a shadowy P2.2-billion bank account fueling graft allegations, and Supreme Court petitions threatening to grind accountability to a halt—this isn’t just a trial; it’s a high-octane clash that could redefine Philippine democracy. Davao Lawyers, led by the fiery Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM), scream “trap,” accusing Duterte’s camp of stalling until her rumored 2028 presidential bid. But is this a cunning dodge or a rightful demand for due process? As the Senate plays constitutional roulette, the House pushes back, and the Supreme Court looms, one question burns: will justice ignite, or will politics snuff it out?

Legal Deep Dive: Unraveling the Davao Lawyers’ Battle Cry

1. Delay Tactics: A Sinister Plot to Derail Justice?

The Davao Lawyers, including Joel Mahinay and Arvin Dexter Lopoz, charge that Supreme Court petitions by Duterte’s legal team, led by Israelito Torreon, are a calculated gambit to stall her impeachment trial. They warn these filings, like the February 18, 2025, challenge to the complaint’s validity, aim to exhaust public interest and delay accountability until Duterte’s potential 2028 presidential run. This echoes Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 2003), where the Supreme Court clarified judicial review applies only to ensure constitutional compliance, not to meddle in political processes. Yet, Francisco also showed how judicial review can halt proceedings, as when it nullified a second impeachment complaint against then-Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. for violating the one-year bar rule under Article XI, Section 3(5).

For the Assertion:

Strategic Stalling: Petitions raising issues like the one-year bar rule—alleging the House’s fourth complaint on February 5, 2025, violates Article XI, Section 3(5)—could drag on for months, sapping public momentum. Mahinay’s claim that “they want to make people tired” INQUIRER.net, June 14, 2025 aligns with historical delays in politically charged cases.
Sub Judice as a Weapon: Lawyer Romeo Cabarde Jr. warns that premature petitions enable Duterte’s camp to invoke sub judice, silencing critics under the guise of judicial courtesy, a tactic that could paralyze public discourse INQUIRER.net, June 14, 2025.

Against the Assertion:

Legitimate Defense: Duterte’s team argues the House’s fourth complaint, signed by 215 members, denied her due process by omitting prior notice Impeachment process has ‘constitutional infirmities’ – Sara Duterte team. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 5(2)(a) to review constitutional violations, as affirmed in Francisco Jr., validates these petitions as a legal right, not just a delay tactic.
One-Year Bar Dispute: The petitioners’ claim that the House circumvented the one-year bar rule by filing four complaints in quick succession (December 2024–February 2025) merits judicial scrutiny. The OSG’s defense that the fourth complaint is independent Rappler, June 13, 2025 is untested, requiring Supreme Court clarification to prevent procedural abuse.

2. Senate’s Remand: A Constitutional Heist or Procedural Safeguard?

The Senate’s June 10, 2025, vote to remand the impeachment articles to the House for “clarification” has ignited a firestorm. The Davao Lawyers, backed by UP Law Professor Paolo Tamase, brand it a constitutional overreach, arguing that Article XI, Section 3(4) mandates the Senate to “forthwith proceed” to trial when articles are filed by one-third of the House. Tamase warns of an “endless ping-pong” between chambers, eroding accountability Rappler, June 11, 2025. Senator Risa Hontiveros concurs: “There is no ‘remand’ or ‘return’ in the Constitution.”

For the Assertion:

Constitutional Mandate Violated: The Constitution’s directive is crystal-clear: the Senate must proceed to trial upon receiving articles from one-third of the House. The remand lacks any textual basis, risking a precedent where future Senates dodge tough trials Rappler, June 11, 2025.
Power Grab: The remand encroaches on the House’s exclusive initiation power under Article XI, Section 3(1), upsetting the constitutional balance. Gutierrez v. House Committee on Justice G.R. No. 193459, 2011 upheld the House’s procedural autonomy, suggesting the Senate’s move is an overstep.

Against the Assertion:

Senate’s Prerogative: Senate President Francis Escudero framed the remand as a procedural check, not a dismissal, to ensure constitutional compliance Philippine News Agency, June 10, 2025. The Senate’s role as the sole trier Article XI, Section 3(6) may imply authority to verify articles, though unexplicit.
Judicial Deference: Gutierrez shows courts often defer to congressional discretion in impeachment processes, suggesting the Supreme Court may uphold the remand as within the Senate’s fact-finding role, avoiding immediate escalation.

3. Unexplained Wealth: Smoking Gun or Political Mirage?

The P2.2-billion Julia Vargas account at BPI, allegedly held by Sara and Rodrigo Duterte, is the impeachment’s flashpoint. The Davao Lawyers call it the trial’s “most awaited part,” citing potential violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act) and Republic Act No. 6713, which require accurate SALN filings. Section 13 of RA 3019 presumes ill-gotten wealth for assets disproportionate to lawful income, a principle upheld in Republic v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 152154, 2003.

For the Assertion:

Legal Weight: Non-disclosure of the account in Duterte’s SALNs could constitute “graft and corruption” or “betrayal of public trust” under Article XI, Section 2. AMLC documents cited in the articles suggest a paper trail, strengthening the case INQUIRER.net, June 14, 2025.
Political Volatility: Lopoz highlights Rodrigo Duterte’s “violent reaction” to past inquiries, signaling the account’s sensitivity and potential as a trial centerpiece INQUIRER.net, June 14, 2025.

Against the Assertion:

Evidentiary Weakness: The AMLC documents are unverified, and Duterte has not had a trial opportunity to explain the account’s origin. RA 3019 allows rebuttal of the ill-gotten wealth presumption, and without concrete proof, the allegation risks collapsing.
Political Smear: Critics like Davao Mayor Baste Duterte claim the issue distracts from broader political battles, such as 2025 budget disputes, suggesting it’s a politically motivated attack rather than a substantiated charge Wikipedia, Impeachment of Sara Duterte.

Ethical Firestorm: Tangled Loyalties and Hidden Agendas

The impeachment is a minefield of ethical conflicts. Israelito Torreon’s dual role as Duterte’s counsel and Apollo Quiboloy’s lawyer raises red flags under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon II, Section 13, which prohibits conflicting representations. His ties to Duterte’s political machine suggest bias, potentially undermining his duty of candor to the Supreme Court. This mirrors ethical dilemmas in Impeaching Legal Ethics (31 Cardozo L. Rev. 2333), where lawyers weaponized ethics in political cases.

The abuse of sub judice is equally alarming. Cabarde warns that Duterte’s camp could exploit judicial courtesy to silence critics, stifling transparency and public discourse INQUIRER.net, June 14, 2025. This tactic, paired with the Senate’s remand, risks painting the process as a political cover-up, eroding trust in democratic institutions.

Bold Recommendations:

House Fights Back: The House must retransmit the articles immediately, as Lopoz urges, to force the Senate’s hand under Article XI, Section 3(4) and bypass Supreme Court delays INQUIRER.net, June 14, 2025.
Supreme Court Holds Fire: Per Gutierrez G.R. No. 193459, 2011, the Court should avoid intervening unless grave constitutional violations are proven, preserving separation of powers.
Expose the Wealth: The Senate trial must prioritize transparent scrutiny of AMLC documents, adhering to RA 3019 standards, while ensuring Duterte’s right to rebut Daily Guardian.
Ethical Crackdown: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines must investigate Torreon’s dual role for CPRA violations, reinforcing legal ethics in high-stakes cases.
2028 Warning: Prolonged delays could fuel Duterte’s 2028 narrative as a persecuted leader, undermining accountability. Swift resolution is critical to prevent a democratic backslide.

Conclusion: Igniting Justice or Extinguishing Accountability?

Sara Duterte’s impeachment is a crucible for Philippine democracy, testing whether constitutional checks can withstand political maneuvering. The Senate’s remand is a constitutional gamble, defying Article XI’s mandate, but Supreme Court intervention risks plunging the judiciary into a political maelstrom. The Davao Lawyers’ warnings of delay tactics ring true, yet Duterte’s procedural challenges are legally grounded. The P2.2-billion account, while explosive, needs rigorous proof to avoid becoming a political weapon.

The clock is ticking. If this impeachment stalls, it risks becoming a cautionary tale of justice smothered by procedural games. The House, Senate, and Supreme Court must act with urgency and integrity, or the flames of accountability may flicker out, leaving democracy in ashes.

Key Citations:

1987 Constitution, Article XI
Francisco Jr. v. House G.R. No. 160261, 2003
Gutierrez v. House G.R. No. 193459, 2011
Republic v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 152154, 2003
Republic Act No. 3019
Republic Act No. 6713
Senate Remand, June 10, 2025
OSG Comment, March 27, 2025

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.