From Impeachment Graveyard to Ombudsman Guillotine: Sara’s Sequel of Slush and Safehouse Shenanigans

The Supreme Court Buries the Body, Civil Society Digs It Up Again

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — December 13, 2025

HAYY, mga ka-kweba, gather ’round the bonfire of Philippine political absurdity. Just when you thought the impeachment farce against Vice President (VP) Sara Duterte had been buried six feet under by the Supreme Court in July 2025—poof, voided on a technicality in Duterte v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 278353, July 25, 2025) for violating the one-year bar and procedural niceties—civil society warriors storm the gates of the Office of the Ombudsman like avenging angels with a 58-page complaint in hand. On December 12, 2025, priests, ex-bureaucrats, academics, and journalists drop the bomb: plunder, graft, malversation, bribery, and betrayal of public trust over ₱612.5 million in “confidential” funds allegedly turned into personal confetti across the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and Department of Education (DepEd) (Inquirer, 12 Dec. 2025.).

This isn’t a sequel; it’s the bloodier spin-off. Impeachment failed because Congress couldn’t follow its own rules—archived, dismissed, barred until 2026. Now, the battlefield shifts to the criminal arena, where the stakes are prison, not just removal. Will the Ombudsman dare wield Republic Act (RA) No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) against an impeachable titan? Or will this fizzle into another technical whimper? Suspense hangs thicker than Manila smog. Buckle up—this is the “what happens when Congress botches the job” episode we’ve all been waiting for.

***“Best-before-date: Election Day 2028—digest at your own risk.”***

The Cast: A Rogues’ Gallery of Power and Puppets

Let’s prosecute them all in prose, shall we?

The Accused: Sara Duterte and Her Merry Band of 15

At the helm, VP Sara Duterte—the iron-fisted heir who juggled two empires: the OVP with its ₱500 million stash (2022-2023) and DepEd‘s ₱112.5 million slice. She allegedly “designed and directed” parallel schemes of diversion, per the complaint. A modern-day Estrada, commanding a “wheel-and-chain” conspiracy (hello, Estrada v. Sandiganbayan) where subordinates spin the wheel of vouchers and she pulls the chain of approvals.

The orchestra: Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez, the alleged gatekeeper; accountants like Gina Acosta and Rosalynne Sanchez, masters of blind certifications; colonels Raymund Dante Lachica and Dennis Nolasco, unbonded cash mules hauling duffels without proper bonding; Sunshine Fajarda and husband Edward, envelope distributors extraordinaire; Gloria Mercado, the whistleblower-turned-respondent (classic flip to pressure testimony); and retirees like Nolasco Mempin. These aren’t bit players—they’re the alleged conspirators turning public funds into phantom feasts. If proven, this is plunder’s textbook pattern: coordinated overt acts amassing ill-gotten wealth beyond ₱50 million (RA No. 7080, as amended).

The Accusers: Noble Crusaders or Timed Assassins?

Priests like Fr. Flavie Villanueva (fresh off his 2025 Magsaysay glow) and Fr. Robert Reyes, ex-undersecretary Cielo Magno, academics, and journalists—hauling truckloads of documents to the Ombudsman. Strengths? Concrete: specific amounts, disbursement trails, Commission on Audit (COA)-flagged irregularities. They paint a “systematic scheme” of fake vouchers and cover-ups.

But let’s be merciless: Is this pure accountability, or a politically calibrated dagger post-impeachment flop? Timed perfectly as Duterte eyes higher office, smelling of opposition orchestration. Weakness? The Everest of proving personal enrichment for plunder—rapid spending isn’t automatic pocket-lining. Without bank trails to Duterte’s assets, this risks collapsing into lesser graft charges.

The Institutions: Reluctant Gladiators in the Arena

The Ombudsman, armed with RA 6770‘s broad probe powers, stares at Section 21’s impeachment carve-out. Can it investigate a sitting VP criminally, or just collate for a dead impeachment? COA, the supposed watchdog, initially greenlit receipts from snack-food ghosts—exposing systemic flabbiness. And the Supreme Court, fresh from voiding impeachment, now looms as the potential decider on jurisdiction. Will they dodge or dive in?

The Symphony of Scandal: Farce Set to Plunder’s Tune

Beyond headlines (plunder under RA 7080, graft via RA 3019 §3(a)/(e), malversation Article 217, Revised Penal Code (RPC)), the lore is pure tragicomedy.

The “Mary Grace Piattos” Protocol

Peak satirical genius. Acknowledgment receipts signed by non-existent “Mary Grace Piattos” (Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)-confirmed ghost), “Nova,” “Oishi”—snack brands mocking accountability. Liquidating millions with forged acknowledgment receipts (ARs)? This screams mens rea for malversation (unlawful appropriation) and falsification. COA auditors swallowed it whole initially. Tragic joke: “confidential” funds justified by junk-food phantoms. If this isn’t evident bad faith, what is?

The “Envelope” Economy

Gloria Mercado’s testimony—monthly ₱50,000 envelopes labeled “HOPE,” handed by Sunshine Fajarda, allegedly from Duterte’s office. “Subtle bribery” to grease procurement? Ties to RPC bribery and RA 3019‘s unwarranted benefits. Naming Mercado as respondent? Clever ploy to flip her into a state witness—immunity for damning linkage.

Safehouse Follies & Unbonded Cash Carriers

Millions for “safehouses” that were vacant lots or myths; colonels hauling unbonded cash advances. Gross inexcusable negligence (RA 3019 §3(e)), breaching trust and auditing rules. Duffel-bag democracy—funds vanishing into black holes.

This isn’t mismanagement; it’s alleged orchestration.

The Constitutional Thunderdome: Laws Clash Like Titans

Core thriller: RA 6770 (Ombudsman’s all-powerful probe) vs. Constitution’s impeachment exclusivity.

Section 22 allows investigating impeachable officials—for impeachment evidence. But criminal filing against a sitting VP? Pit against Art. XI’s removal-only-by-impeachment shield. Estrada v. Desierto ghosts: no presidential immunity analog for VP?

Jurisdiction verdict needed: Sandiganbayan via salary grade (Organo v. Sandiganbayan) or Regional Trial Court (RTC)? Supreme Court must rule—can Ombudsman file information, or just gather dust?

Pathways: Ombudsman probes, suspends subordinates (turning state witnesses?). Duterte’s lawyers bolt to SC for temporary restraining order (TRO), crying “persecution” post-impeachment. Cliffhanger: Dare Ombudsman indict? Or delay till 2028?

The Judgment of Consequences: No One Wins Clean

For Duterte: Jurisdictional win buys time, but lawsuit shadows kill presidential dreams. A term defending envelopes isn’t campaigning.

For the nation: “Confidential funds” exposed as slush—systemic COA rot, budget black holes. Expect abolition calls for civilian agencies.

For rule of law: Ultimate test. Does power bend statutes (technical dismissals), or does Ombudsman’s gavel strike equal?

Barok’s Verdict and Warning

This saga screams Philippine democracy’s malaise: power treats public funds as personal ATMs, institutions play procedural dodgeball, accountability dies in technicalities. Guilty or not, the arrogance—fake Piattos receipts, envelope lubrication—mocks us all.

Demand: Full Ombudsman probe, no delays. SC swift jurisdiction ruling. Abolish civilian confidential funds—sunlight disinfects. Transparency law mandating real-time audits, even redacted. Flip witnesses fairly, but prosecute principals mercilessly.

No whimpering technical escape. Roar for justice—or democracy feasts on its own tail. Accountability now, or forever hold your plunder.

—Barok