The decision of the House prosecution panel to drop three of the four articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte and concentrate on alleged unexplained wealth marks a consequential turn in a case that could shape the country’s political future well beyond 2028. 

The prosecution believes that the remaining charge, covering alleged unexplained wealth, violations of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) requirements, and prohibited business interests, is sufficiently supported by evidence to warrant her removal from office. By streamlining the trial, prosecutors hope to prevent procedural delays from dragging the proceedings into the presidential election season, when political calculations could overwhelm the merits of the case.

The strategy has its risks. 

Dropping the allegations concerning confidential funds, bribery, and grave threats from the impeachment trial may shorten proceedings, but it also raises a legitimate question: will the public see this as a sharper, more focused prosecution or as an abandonment of issues that demand accountability? The answer will depend partly on what happens next. 

True, the withdrawal of impeachment charges does not, by itself, establish innocence or extinguish any criminal liability that may arise from the underlying acts. The prosecution has committed to making its evidence available to the Office of the Ombudsman, which has expressed interest in examining the confidential-fund allegations. This is particularly important because the House committee on good government and public accountability had already investigated the questioned expenditures and submitted its findings to the Ombudsman in 2024. The Commission on Audit’s (COA) final denial of the motion for reconsideration concerning ₱73.287 million in disallowed confidential expenses of the Office of the Vice President adds another significant development to the public record. These matters deserve an independent, evidence-based determination rather than being allowed to disappear with the withdrawal of an impeachment article.

The implications extend beyond the fate of one public official. 

In September, the Supreme Court declared that Congress’ failure over 39 years to enact an anti-political dynasty law constituted grave abuse of discretion. The ruling was a forceful reminder that constitutional obligations cannot be indefinitely postponed to protect political convenience or entrenched interests. Although Congress retains discretion over the law’s specific provisions, it cannot simply disregard the constitutional mandate to prohibit political dynasties. Together, these developments expose a central weakness of Philippine governance: formal institutions and constitutional safeguards may exist, yet their effectiveness depends on whether those entrusted with public power are willing to enforce them.

The stakes for Vice President Duterte are substantial. A conviction in the impeachment trial could result in her removal from office and disqualification from holding public office, jeopardizing her potential presidential bid in 2028. Separately, an Ombudsman investigation could lead to criminal charges and, if a competent court ultimately finds her guilty, imprisonment. These are distinct proceedings, with different purposes, evidentiary requirements, and consequences. Neither outcome should be presumed. 

Duterte is entitled to due process and the opportunity to answer the allegations, just as the public is entitled to a credible accounting of public funds and the impartial enforcement of the law. The principle is simple: neither political prominence nor political vulnerability should determine the outcome.

There is, moreover, a broader question of institutional respect. Vice President Duterte is within her rights to be represented by counsel and to decide whether to appear personally before the Senate impeachment court. Her absence should not, in itself, be interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing or a violation of the law. 

Yet legal rights and respect for constitutional institutions are not mutually exclusive. When public appearances and press conferences appear to be directed more toward discrediting the Senate, attacking individual personalities, or challenging the legitimacy of the proceedings than toward addressing the substance of the allegations, the distinction between defending oneself and undermining an institution becomes blurred.

Public officials need not agree with every action of an investigating body, and they are entitled to challenge its decisions through lawful remedies. But the credibility of constitutional government suffers when its highest officials appear to demand accountability from others while showing little regard for the institutions through which accountability must be pursued. 

Meaningful accountability

The issue is not whether the Vice President must submit to public opinion, but whether political influence is being used to strengthen the rule of law or to weaken public confidence in it.

What signals are these developments sending to the country? 

For years, the perception that powerful political families and influential officials could evade meaningful accountability has weakened public confidence in government. When investigations stall, constitutional mandates remain unfulfilled, and allegations involving public money fail to reach a credible conclusion, impunity becomes more than a failure of enforcement. It becomes a governing culture. It tells ordinary citizens that the rules may be strict for some and negotiable for others.

We may now be approaching a turning point, but it would be premature to declare victory. The impeachment court must assess the evidence fairly and independently. The Ombudsman must determine whether the available records justify criminal proceedings and pursue them without fear or favor. Congress must comply with the Supreme Court’s directive on political dynasties rather than find new reasons for delay. And all institutions must demonstrate that accountability is not merely a weapon deployed against political opponents, but a consistent obligation of public service.

Ultimately, the measure of progress is not whether Sara Duterte wins or loses her political contest. It is whether the country establishes a more durable standard of public accountability, one in which unexplained wealth is properly examined, confidential funds are subject to meaningful safeguards, constitutional duties are fulfilled, and allegations against powerful officials are resolved on their merits.

If these processes are pursued with integrity, the Philippines could begin to turn the corner from a culture of impunity toward one of responsibility and the rule of law. If they falter once again, the message will be that even the most serious questions of public trust can be subordinated to political survival. – Rappler.com

Diwa C. Guinigundo is the former deputy governor for monetary policy and other aspects of central banking. He was a former alternate executive director at the IMF in Washington, DC in 2001-2003. He is the author and editor of several books on political economy, regional crisis and cooperation, debt and economic growth and public policy agenda.

He serves as independent director of several corporate and financial institutions with focus on corporate governance, risk oversight and audit.

He also serves as principal advisor for New York-based GlobalSourcePartners. He remains in the advisory board of ASEAN Macroeconomic Research Office and Singapore Management University’s Sim Kee Boon Institute for Financial Economics.

He is the senior pastor of the Fullness of Christ International Ministries in Mandaluyong.

Below are other Puso at Diwa columns by the author:

[Puso at Diwa] When AMLC’s financial intelligence speaks  

[Puso at Diwa] VP Sara Duterte trial: Going back in time or moving forward on banking reforms?