Tulfo’s Bold Move: Sara Duterte’s Trial or a 2028 Throne Chase?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — July 19, 2025

IN THE Philippines, where dynastic power and personal vendettas weave a tangled web, the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte unfolds like a political thriller, its plot thick with accusations of corruption, betrayal, and bloodshed. At the heart of this maelstrom stands Senator Raffy Tulfo, a populist firebrand whose fervent support for the trial’s continuation has set the stage ablaze. Is he a crusader for justice or a cunning player eyeing the 2028 presidential prize? With the Senate poised to reconvene on July 30, 2025, a divided nation holds its breath, watching a trial that could shatter alliances and reshape its future.

Unmasking the Firestorm: The Charges Against Duterte

The allegations against Duterte are a political Molotov cocktail, threatening to ignite an already polarized nation. She faces seven articles of impeachment, each a dagger aimed at her legacy:

Misuse of ₱612.5 Million in Confidential Funds: Accused of siphoning funds from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and Department of Education (DepEd) in 2022-2023, with 60% of 677 alleged DepEd recipients untraceable, per the Philippine Statistics Authority (Dec. 9, 2024).
Culpable Violation of the Constitution: Tied to budgetary irregularities in fund allocation, violating fiscal transparency laws.
Graft and Corruption: Allegations of malversation, including bribing DepEd officials with ₱50,000 monthly cash gifts, breaching Republic Act No. 3019.
Assassination Threats: A November 22, 2024, press conference where Duterte claimed to have hired a hitman to target President Marcos, his wife, and House Speaker Romualdez—later retracted as a security concern but deemed an “active threat” by the administration.
Extrajudicial Killings: Linked to the Davao Death Squad and her father’s drug war, a charge heavy with moral weight but thin on direct evidence.
Unexplained Wealth: Failure to disclose all properties in her Statement of Assets and Net Worth (SALN), violating Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
Destabilization and Sedition: Accused of inciting insurrection, a charge critics call a stretch to paint her as a threat to national stability.

Legal and Political Validity:

The charges are legally grave but precarious. The fund misuse allegations rely on documentary gaps, which could reflect sloppy administration rather than criminal intent. The assassination remarks, while reckless, were clarified as non-serious, and their status as a “high crime” is debated, with former Chief Justice Reynato Puno questioning their sufficiency. The extrajudicial killings charge, though incendiary, lacks concrete evidence linking Duterte directly to specific acts, leaning heavily on her familial ties.

Politically, the impeachment reeks of vengeance, driven by the collapse of the Marcos-Duterte UniTeam after Duterte’s resignation from DepEd and her public jab that Marcos “does not know how to be president” (East Asia Forum, Feb. 25, 2025). With over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint on February 5, 2025, the House’s zeal suggests a Marcos-led campaign to neutralize a 2028 rival.

Procedural Flashpoints:

The Senate’s June 10, 2025, decision to remand the articles to the House for certification of the “one impeachment per year” rule has sparked a firestorm. Duterte’s allies, like Senator Bato dela Rosa, decry it as a deliberate stall, prolonging her public crucifixion (Reuters, June 11, 2025). Legal scholars argue it violates the Constitution’s mandate for the Senate to assume jurisdiction upon receipt of articles (1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XI). The House’s swift certification on June 11 does little to douse suspicions of a choreographed political hit, leaving the trial’s legitimacy hanging by a thread.

Decoding Tulfo’s Crusade: Justice or Ambition?

For the Trial: A Beacon of Due Process

Tulfo’s clarion call is steeped in the rhetoric of fairness: “Wouldn’t it be better if she clears her name by defending herself in the trial and proves her innocence?” (GMA Integrated News, July 15, 2025). He insists the Senate’s jurisdiction is ironclad, rejecting dismissal motions as a betrayal of constitutional duty. His consultations with former Supreme Court and Sandiganbayan justices signal a quest for judiciousness, aiming to “make intelligent decisions” based on evidence. This resonates with 66% of Filipinos who demand Duterte face the charges, per a Social Weather Stations (SWS) poll (July 9, 2025). By championing transparency, Tulfo taps into a national yearning for accountability in a land scarred by impunity.

Against the Trial: A Political Powder Keg

Yet, Tulfo’s stance is not without shadows. Critics, like Senator Migz Zubiri, brand the impeachment a “witch hunt” to eliminate Duterte, the 2028 frontrunner with 39% support to Tulfo’s 28% (The Diplomat, July 11, 2025). The trial’s timing—post-midterm elections, where Duterte’s allies gained ground—fuels suspicions of a Marcos-orchestrated purge. Senator JV Estrada warns of economic fallout, noting that foreign investment could falter amid instability, a concern Tulfo sidesteps (PhilStar, July 7, 2025).

Tulfo’s support for Senate President Chiz Escudero, accused of delaying the trial, clashes with his push for its continuation, exposing a strategic hedge to straddle both pro- and anti-Duterte camps. With 42% of Filipinos opposing the trial, Tulfo risks alienating a significant chunk of the electorate, fanning fears of a politicized vendetta.

Peeling Back the Mask: Tulfo’s True Motives

Tulfo’s rhetoric is a tightrope act, balancing principle with ambition. His call for due process dovetails with his “action man” persona, forged as a broadcaster crusading against injustice. Yet, the 2028 election looms like a storm cloud. As Duterte’s closest rival, her conviction would clear his path, appealing to anti-Duterte voters while dismantling a dynasty that has gripped Philippine politics.

His consultations with legal luminaries lend credibility but also serve as a shield against accusations of partisanship, cloaking the strategic gain of weakening a foe. His refusal to commit to a final vote keeps his options fluid, allowing him to pivot as public sentiment or Senate dynamics shift. By backing Escudero while advocating for the trial, Tulfo plays both sides, preserving alliances with the administration while burnishing his reformist credentials.

Is this a stand for justice or a calculated bid to topple a titan?

Ripple Effects: A Nation at a Crossroads

Political Shockwaves

A conviction would bar Duterte from office, reshaping the 2028 race and potentially elevating Tulfo or Marcos loyalists. An acquittal could galvanize her base, casting her as a martyr against a vengeful administration, strengthening her 39% lead (The Diplomat, July 11, 2025). Party alignments are fracturing, with Duterte’s allies like Dela Rosa and Imee Marcos clashing with pro-Marcos senators, threatening legislative gridlock. Public trust teeters: 66% demand accountability, but 42% see the trial as harassment, risking deeper cynicism.

Legal Landmines

The Senate’s remand sets a perilous precedent, potentially allowing future delays to manipulate outcomes. Philconsa’s Puno warned it could erode constitutional integrity (Cebu Daily News, June 13, 2025). A sloppy trial risks delegitimizing impeachment as a tool for accountability, while a rigorous one could clarify constitutional ambiguities, fortifying future anti-corruption efforts.

Social Tinderbox

The trial is a spark in a divided nation. The Iglesia ni Cristo’s 1.5 million-strong rally against impeachment (Inquirer.net, Jan. 14, 2025) clashes with 84% of students demanding Duterte’s removal (Inquirer.net, March 31, 2025), signaling a generational and ideological chasm. Prolonged conflict could ignite unrest, as vigils for justice face off against Duterte loyalists crying foul.

Charting the Path Forward: Recommendations

Evidence Over Partisanship: The Senate must anchor the trial in hard evidence, particularly on the extrajudicial killings charge, to avoid perceptions of a political lynching. Transparent, expedited proceedings are crucial to maintain legitimacy.
Tulfo’s Contradiction: Tulfo must resolve his support for Escudero’s delays, which undermine his pro-trial stance. A clear position on the Senate’s pace would bolster his credibility as a champion of justice.
Independent Oversight: To counter “witch hunt” allegations, an independent panel of retired justices and civil society leaders should monitor the trial, ensuring fairness and restoring public faith in a process teetering on the edge of vendetta.