Sara Duterte’s Impeachment: Saving Millions, Squandering Billions, and Calling It Patriotism

The OVP’s ‘fiscal responsibility’ argument would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so tragic.

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C Biraogo — July 18, 2025

IN THE Philippines, where political dynasties brawl like soap opera stars and public trust is a currency more devalued than the peso, the impeachment saga of Vice President Sara Duterte offers a grimly entertaining spectacle. Ruth Castelo, the Office of the Vice President’s spokesperson, has emerged as the lead actor in this tragicomedy, wielding a script that blends fiscal piety with legal sleight-of-hand. Her claim? Dismissing Duterte’s impeachment trial would save “millions and millions” of public funds, as if the ₱612.5 million in allegedly misused confidential funds were just loose change. The irony is thicker than Manila’s traffic smog: a government accused of squandering billions is now preaching thrift to dodge accountability. Welcome to Philippine politics, where the only thing more creative than Duterte’s defense is her office’s accounting.

The Irony: Eager for Trial, Desperate to Dodge It

Castelo’s narrative is a masterclass in cognitive dissonance. On one hand, she insists Duterte is “ready and eager” to face the Senate’s impeachment court, poised to clear her name of charges ranging from graft to plotting assassination. On the other, Duterte’s legal team is frantically petitioning the Supreme Court to nullify the case, citing “technical defects” like a constitutional one-year bar rule or due process lapses. It’s a bit like a boxer bragging about their knockout punch while begging the referee to cancel the fight. If Duterte is so eager to prove her innocence, why the legal acrobatics to avoid the ring?

The “technically defective” defense is particularly rich. Castelo argues the trial is flawed from the start, a claim echoed in Duterte’s Supreme Court petitions. Yet the House of Representatives, with 215 of 306 members signing the impeachment complaint, certified its constitutional compliance. Apparently, what’s defective isn’t the process but the OVP’s ability to face it without clutching at procedural straws. As the House attested, the process is sound—but since when has soundness stopped a good political circus?

The absurdity peaks when Castelo frames dismissal as fiscal prudence. Saving millions on a trial, she says, would free up resources for national priorities. Never mind the ₱612.5 million in confidential funds allegedly spent with receipts listing 1,322 fictitious beneficiaries. In Duterte’s world, accountability is a luxury, but untraceable funds are a necessity.

The Motives: Dynastic Bloodsport and 2028 Ambitions

This impeachment isn’t just about justice; it’s a cage match between the Marcos-Romualdez bloc and the Duterte dynasty, with 2028’s presidential race as the prize. The “UniTeam” that swept Marcos and Duterte to victory in 2022 is now a punchline, shattered by public spats, assassination threats, and mutual accusations of corruption. Duterte’s alleged plot to kill Marcos, his wife, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez—her former ally—reads like a rejected movie script. Nothing unites politicians like the fear of actual governance, so they trade impeachment bullets and press conferences instead.

Castelo’s fiscal argument conveniently sidesteps this power struggle. She cites a June 2025 SWS survey showing 66% of Filipinos want Duterte to face the charges, then pivots to argue the trial’s cost outweighs its value. When democracy is inconvenient, switch to legal technicalities. It’s a gambit to rally Duterte’s base, who see her as a 2028 frontrunner, while painting the Marcos camp as wasteful persecutors. The irony? The same survey shows only 19% oppose Duterte facing trial, suggesting the public isn’t buying the OVP’s dodge. Castelo’s rhetoric is less about saving money than saving Duterte’s political skin.

The Constitutional Farce: Senate’s Punt and Judicial Jitters

The Senate’s June 10, 2025, decision to “return to sender” the impeachment articles was a masterstroke of cowardice. With an 18-5 vote, senators like Alan Peter Cayetano and Bong Go—Duterte loyalists—kicked the can back to the House, citing the need to “clarify constitutionality.” Senator Jinggoy Estrada fretted about “economic disruption,” as if impeaching a vice president accused of high crimes might tank the stock market. It’s a curious concern in a country where political chaos is practically a GDP driver. The Senate’s delay tactic, dressed up as procedural rigor, smells more like fear of Duterte’s populist clout.

The Supreme Court, now tasked with resolving petitions from both Duterte and pro-impeachment groups, faces a tightrope walk. The 2003 Francisco v. House precedent, tied to the failed impeachment of Chief Justice Hilario Davide, suggests the Court may hesitate to meddle in a political process. Yet Duterte’s camp hopes for a judicial lifeline, arguing the House violated rules like the one-year bar on multiple impeachments. Is the Court an arbiter of justice or an enabler of delay? As former Justice Adolfo Azcuna argued, the Constitution demands trials proceed “forthwith,” not when senators finish their election campaigns. The Senate’s punt and the Court’s indecision risk turning a constitutional duty into a bureaucratic farce.

The Hypocrisy: Pennies for Trials, Billions for Graft

Castelo’s “millions saved” mantra is a fiscal sleight-of-hand that obscures the elephant in the room: the ₱612.5 million in confidential funds allegedly misused by Duterte’s offices. House investigations revealed irregularities like fictitious beneficiaries and unverified receipts, with special disbursing officers testifying to unauthorized fund transfers. A UP professor put it bluntly: “The misuse of government funds… denies the public food and services it needs.” Castelo’s plea to save trial costs ignores the billions potentially squandered through graft. Accountability isn’t a line item; it’s the price of a functioning democracy.

The lose-lose scenario is quintessentially Philippine. Dismiss the trial, and you legitimize impunity, letting allegations of corruption and assassination plots fester unanswered. Proceed, and you risk politicizing institutions, with senators voting along dynastic lines rather than evidence. Philippine governance: where the only certainty is chaos. The public, caught between elite feuds, deserves better than a system where justice is a bargaining chip and receipts are optional.

Bite-Sized Fixes for a Toothless Democracy

For the Supreme Court: Either uphold the Constitution or rename yourselves the “Supreme Delayers.” The Francisco precedent warns against judicial overreach, but dodging this case risks endorsing obstruction. Act swiftly, or the public will see you as complicit in elite gamesmanship.
For the Public: Demand receipts for the ₱612.5 million, not just rhetoric. The SWS survey shows you want answers—hold senators and justices accountable at the ballot box and beyond. Transparency isn’t a favor; it’s your right.
For Duterte: If you’re innocent, stop hiding behind lawyers and face the music. (Or at least the receipts.) Claiming eagerness while filing dismissal petitions only fuels skepticism. If the charges are a “scrap of paper,” prove it in court, not press conferences.

The Filipino people, weary of dynastic squabbles, deserve a government that spends their money on schools, not secrets. This impeachment saga, with its absurd ironies and cynical motives, is a test of whether the Philippines can rise above its political soap opera. So far, the scriptwriters seem more interested in drama than democracy.