Bucoy’s Legal Blitz Against Martires’ Rogue Probe: Duterte’s Impeachment on the Line

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 27, 2025

WITH Ombudsman Samuel Martires’ term racing toward its July 2025 expiration and the Senate impeachment court mired in a constitutional quagmire, Vice President Sara Duterte’s fate teeters on the edge of a political abyss—a high-stakes clash where legal precision meets raw power. The air crackles with warnings of a “bloodbath” from Duterte’s loyalists, countered by prosecutors’ demands that the Ombudsman yield to the Senate’s authority. This isn’t just a legal spat; it’s a pulse-pounding saga of betrayal, ambition, and a democracy under siege, with the 2028 elections casting a long shadow.

Countdown to Chaos: A Political Thriller Unleashed

Picture a courtroom where the ticking clock is a guillotine. On February 5, 2025, the House of Representatives etched history by impeaching Sara Duterte, the first Philippine vice president to face such a reckoning, over alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds from 2022 to 2023 Wikipedia. The charges—technical malversation, plunder, bribery, and betrayal of public trust—are political dynamite. But on June 10, the Senate, acting as the impeachment court, threw a curveball, remanding the articles back to the House for constitutional flaws, leaving the trial in a maddening limbo Rappler.

Enter Ombudsman Samuel Martires, who, on June 19, just nine days later, ordered Duterte to answer the House’s charges, treating its committee report as a formal complaint GMA News. This lightning-fast move—unheard of for an office notorious for sluggishness—has ignited a constitutional firestorm. Duterte’s camp threatens a “bloodbath” if the impeachment advances, while prosecutors, led by Antonio Bucoy, cry foul, accusing Martires of trampling the Senate’s turf Tribune.

The stakes are colossal: an acquittal could catapult Duterte toward a 2028 presidential run, while a conviction might hand President Marcos a hollow victory, alienating her base and fracturing his coalition. With Martires’ retirement looming, is this a legacy-defining crusade or a reckless power play in a nation on edge?

Scalpel to the Constitution: Dissecting the Legal Battleground

Bucoy’s Battle Cry: Impeachment’s Ironclad Primacy

Prosecution spokesperson Antonio Bucoy wields Republic Act No. 6770 (the Ombudsman Act of 1989) like a legal broadsword, arguing that impeachment trumps all. His case rests on two pillars:

Section 21: This provision explicitly bars the Ombudsman from disciplining officials removable only by impeachment, like the Vice President, cementing the Senate’s sole jurisdiction over such accountability. Bucoy insists this creates a constitutional firewall: impeachment is the only path forward.
Section 22: The sole exception allows Ombudsman investigations of impeachable officials, but only to file a verified impeachment complaint with the House. Since the House already impeached Duterte on February 5, 2025, Bucoy argues this loophole is closed—the Ombudsman must stand down until the Senate rules.

Bucoy’s arsenal is bolstered by Supreme Court precedent. The 2005 ruling in Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 146486) is crystal clear: impeachable officials cannot face criminal prosecution for impeachment-related offenses until removed from office. A 1995 ruling on former Ombudsman Aniano Desierto further shields such officials from liability outside impeachment, creating a constitutional fortress Ombudsman v. Desierto. Bucoy’s argument is a legal juggernaut: the Senate’s jurisdiction, triggered on February 5, reigns supreme, and Martires’ probe is a dangerous overreach.

Martires’ Defiant Strike: A Rogue Probe or Righteous Pursuit?

Martires’ June 19 order is a constitutional curveball. By treating the House’s June 10 committee report as a complaint, he launched a preliminary investigation into Duterte and nine others for crimes like plunder and perjury GMA News. Martires claims Section 22 allows this, as investigations for impeachment complaints fall within his mandate Manila Bulletin. But with the House’s impeachment already filed, is he bolstering the Senate’s case or jumping the gun with criminal charges, defying the Ombudsman vs. CA precedent?

Critics, led by Rep. Leila de Lima, scream selective justice. De Lima highlights Martires’ sluggish handling of cases involving Rodrigo Duterte and allies, contrasting it with his nine-day sprint on Sara’s case Inquirer. As a Rodrigo Duterte appointee, Martires’ motives are under scrutiny, especially with his July 2025 retirement looming. De Lima’s broader critique of the Ombudsman’s low case-filing rate with the Sandiganbayan paints an institution teetering on a credibility cliff Inquirer. The House panel, led by Rep. Joel Chua, further muddies the waters, clarifying it filed no formal complaint, casting doubt on the probe’s procedural legitimacy Manila Bulletin.

Impeachment on the Brink: Procedural Mayhem and Political Fallout

Constitutional Limbo: A Trial in Tatters

The Senate’s June 10 remand of the impeachment articles has plunged the trial into a constitutional abyss Rappler. Martires’ probe threatens to deepen the chaos. Bucoy warns of a “double jeopardy” risk: if the Ombudsman files criminal charges before impeachment concludes, Duterte’s defense could claim her rights are violated, potentially derailing both processes Tribune. The Ombudsman vs. CA ruling looms as a legal landmine—criminal charges must wait until removal, or they risk being struck down.

The procedural mess is a prosecutor’s nightmare. The House panel, blindsided by Martires’ speed, fears his evidence-gathering could taint the impeachment trial’s integrity Inquirer. If the Senate resumes, will it embrace or reject Ombudsman findings? Duterte’s legal team, already pushing to dismiss the impeachment on technicalities like the one-year bar rule, could weaponize this confusion to paint the process as a political vendetta Wikipedia.

2028’s Shadow: A Political Powder Keg

The political fallout is explosive. Sara Duterte’s impeachment is a flashpoint in the Marcos-Duterte feud, a rift that could reshape the 2028 presidential race BenarNews. An acquittal would galvanize her base, fueling a potential 2028 comeback. A conviction, however, could fracture Marcos’ coalition, alienating Duterte loyalists as mid dain terms loom in May 2025. Martires’ probe, seen as either a Marcos-orchestrated hit or a misstep by a Duterte ally, stokes bias allegations. An X post by @theadtan on June 20, 2025, captures the public’s suspicion of political motives, amplifying distrust .

The confidential funds scandal—P612.5 million allegedly misused—is a dagger to Duterte’s anti-corruption image. If Martires uncovers damning evidence, it could sway public opinion; if the probe fizzles, it strengthens her victim narrative. The 2028 election is the ultimate prize, and this clash is its opening salvo.

Battle Plan: Resolving the Crisis with Guts and Grit

This constitutional showdown demands urgent action to restore order and trust:

Supreme Court Showdown: The Court must intervene to clarify RA 6770’s hierarchy. The Ombudsman vs. CA precedent offers a blueprint, but a new ruling is critical to define the Ombudsman’s role during pending impeachments, preventing future jurisdictional wars.
Congressional Counterstrike: The Senate’s June 10 remand of Sara Duterte’s impeachment articles laid bare critical weaknesses in the process, from article transmission to trial timelines. To prevent future constitutional gridlock, Congress must form a bipartisan task force to codify ironclad protocols for evidence-sharing and trial initiation, ensuring clarity and efficiency in impeachment proceedings Official Gazette.
Media’s Muckraking Mission: Outlets like Rappler and GMA News must dig into Martires’ “retirement rush” and the confidential funds’ paper trail. Probing the Ombudsman’s case backlog and funding flows could expose bias or inefficiency, serving as a public watchdog GMA News.

The Final Gavel: A Democracy Hanging in the Balance

The Ombudsman’s June 19 order isn’t just a legal misstep—it’s a constitutional Hail Mary, a desperate bid that could either unmask Duterte’s alleged corruption or collapse under its own weight. As Martires races toward his July 2025 exit and the Senate grapples with a trial in tatters, the nation watches a drama where no one escapes unscathed. Whether this ends in Duterte’s ouster, a defiant acquittal, or Martires’ legacy-defining swan song, one truth burns bright: Philippine democracy is on trial, and its verdict will reverberate far beyond 2025.

Key Citations

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.