The House of Representatives is poised for a historic vote on Monday, May 11, 2026, to affirm the Committee on Justice report finding probable cause in the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. The vote, following weeks of hearings and documentary evidence, will enable the transmittal of four Articles of Impeachment to the Senate impeachment court.
Justice Panel Prepares for Plenary Defense
Justice panel chair Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro stated that the committee is ready to defend its findings, evidence, and proceedings before the plenary. “We are anticipating that this coming Monday, we will be given the opportunity to defend the committee report, to defend the findings of probable cause, to defend the Articles of Impeachment,” Luistro said. The Committee on Justice voted unanimously, 53-0, to impeach Duterte and later overwhelmingly approved, 55-0, the committee report and resolution.
Intense Debates Expected
Luistro acknowledged that lawmakers can expect intense debates on both the panel’s findings and the conduct of proceedings. She emphasized that the Justice committee is ready to address questions from House members. Luistro will personally deliver the sponsorship speech summarizing the proceedings, the consolidated Articles of Impeachment, and the evidence presented to the panel.
Voting Threshold and Procedure
Under the Constitution, at least one-third of all House members—106 votes out of 318—is sufficient to approve the Articles of Impeachment and transmit them to the Senate for trial. Luistro confirmed that voting will be nominal, with each member called individually to cast a public yes or no vote. She expressed hope that the plenary will reflect the unity shown by the justice panel during the proceedings.
Four Articles of Impeachment
The plenary discussions will focus on four consolidated Articles of Impeachment adopted by the Justice panel after combining similar allegations from the Saballa and Cabrera complaints. The first article involves alleged misuse and irregular disbursement of confidential funds under the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) during Duterte’s tenure as secretary. The panel examined the questionable utilization of P612.5 million in confidential funds—P500 million under the OVP and P112.5 million under DepEd. Lawmakers also tackled allegations that P125 million in confidential funds released to the OVP in late 2022 were consumed in less than 24 hours, based on testimony from self-confessed Duterte “bagman” Ramil Madriaga.
The second article focuses on allegations of unexplained wealth and discrepancies involving Duterte’s statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) and bank transactions flagged by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). The panel reviewed AMLC findings showing 663 covered and suspicious transactions totaling about P6.77 billion allegedly linked to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio. The findings reportedly included about P3.77 billion in transactions linked to Duterte and roughly P2.99 billion linked to Carpio. The hearings also examined Duterte’s SALN, which reflected net worth increasing from P7.25 million in 2007 to P88.51 million in 2024. Last Monday, counsel Peter Paul Danao, speaking for Carpio’s camp, said the Bank of the Philippine Islands clarified that the reported “P2 billion” amount was actually “P2 million,” supposedly due to a “system glitch.”
The third article concerns allegations of bribery tied to cash envelopes reportedly distributed to DepEd officials when Duterte was secretary. Lawmakers received testimony and records involving alleged P50,000 cash in envelopes labeled “Hope,” which were allegedly handed to officials connected to procurement functions within the department.
The fourth article centers on Duterte’s controversial remarks in November 2024, when she publicly stated online that she had arranged for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then-Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez to be killed should anything happen to her. The Justice panel examined evidence related to the National Bureau of Investigation’s authentication of the video and the subsequent criminal investigation.
