Inside Romualdez Hall, in the House of Representatives complex, lawmakers entered one by one for a caucus that began late in the morning, and extended past lunch. It was no ordinary meeting.
The date was February 5, 2025, a Wednesday. They left that room knowing they just made history.
“You can say more or less 200 lawmakers signed as of 1 pm,” one source told Rappler that day, referring to the newest impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte that would only be made public later in the afternoon, after it passed with enthusiastic applause but little fanfare in the plenary.
Rappler reviewed on-record statements of lawmakers, and talked to five House insiders — all only willing to speak on condition of anonymity — to piece together the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to the unprecedented indictment of a sitting vice president, setting the stage for the country’s biggest political crisis in years.
Murmurs
Vice President Sara Duterte had been bracing for her impeachment for months — maybe even more than a year. She often cited her nemesis France Castro’s pronouncement back in November 2023, when the ACT Teachers lawmaker claimed there were “informal” conversations about the VP’s impeachment.
Congressmen just distanced themselves from the statements of Castro, a left-leaning House minority member who is often excluded from important conversations. But the signs of disarray were always there, and growing, such as Duterte’s insults directed at Speaker Martin Romualdez, and the House’s denial of her request for confidential funds despite being still an ally of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on paper.
Must Read
After she called it quits with the Cabinet in June 2024, the House launched a congressional inquiry into her stint as Department of Education secretary, as well as head of the Office of the Vice President (OVP). The one promoted by the House to lead the probe was Joel Chua, a neophyte and relative unknown at the time. He was among the first to call for Duterte’s resignation from DepEd.
The House became increasingly combative toward Duterte. While lawmakers tiptoed in the past in criticizing the VP, her jabs at the Speaker and refusal to observe decorum during long-established procedures on budget deliberations prompted often unfiltered retaliations from congressmen who — deliberately or not — became Romualdez’s attack dogs.
Their statements were turned into press releases, sent via official House channels to reporters covering the beat. (READ | Sara vs the House: Inside the ugliest live political feud of the Marcos era)
A notable scathing attack, before all hell broke loose, came from Romualdez’s de facto right-hand man, Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe, who floated the idea of Duterte being criminally liable for graft, in relation to confidential expenses flagged by state auditors.
The months-long investigation of the quad committee, which dwelled on issues that hounded the administration of her father Rodrigo Duterte — from extrajudicial killings to Philippine offshore gaming operators — also further fanned the flame.
And in a moment of defiance, Duterte violated House protocols to spend the night at the Batasan with her detained OVP chief of staff Zuleika Lopez. In a now-infamous virtual presser, she uttered a strongly-worded threat that burned whatever goodwill that was left between the formidable Marcos-Duterte alliance that dominated the 2022 elections.
“I already talked to someone. I told that person, if I get killed, assassinate BBM (Marcos), (First Lady) Liza Araneta, and Speaker Romualdez,” Duterte said in November.
“No joke. No joke.”
Momentum lost
Due to the tumultuous series of events involving the House and Duterte, it became clear that it was only a matter of time before someone pulled the trigger and initiated the filing of a complaint. After all, Representative Castro’s Makabayan bloc was already calling for the Vice President’s ouster, and hinting at endorsing an impeachment complaint anytime soon.
But the President came calling — or texting. In a private communication that supposedly leaked to the public, Marcos urged lawmakers not to support the push to impeach his once ally.
“In a larger scheme of things, Sara is unimportant. So please do not file impeachment complaints,” the message read, which Marcos later confirmed to be his.
The plea was seemingly effective. In the immediate aftermath, lawmakers from the majority who had become at ease criticizing the VP in the media begged off from interviews. Chua’s good government committee, which had conducted 10 hearings on Duterte’s public expenditures since September, significantly slowed down, putting the Vice President on the committee agenda only one more time after Marcos signified his supposed opposition to the impeachment effort.
Other lawmakers also took their cues from the President’s remarks.
“Most probably, I will not support it because I agree with the President that we should focus on more important things,” said Bataan 1st District Representative Geraldine Roman, regional chair for Central Luzon of Speaker Romualdez’s party Lakas CMD. She confirmed receiving a text message from Malacañang.
First three complaints
The reality of the President’s appeal, whether genuine or not, is that it could only convince the House majority, but not the chamber’s divided, yet persistent, opposition.
In a span of three weeks, members of the House minority backed three impeachment complaints against Duterte: the first, filed with the chamber by civic organizations fronted by former senator Leila de Lima and endorsed by Akbayan Representative Perci Cendaña; the second, by left-leaning organizations and endorsed by Representative Castro and Makabayan colleagues Arlene Brosas and Raoul Manuel; and the third, by clergy members and endorsed by lawmakers Gabriel Bordado and Lex Colada.
All three complaints accused the Vice President of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution in relation to her allegedly anomalous public spending. The first and third petitions also mentioned the Vice President’s assassination threat.
Insiders have a common critique of the first complaint filed by De Lima’s group — it was messy and unnecessarily long, listing a whopping 24 articles of impeachment. Each incident of Duterte’s alleged funds misuse had its own separate article. To its credit though, it was the only complaint among the three that mentioned her bank records, and her supposed role in the Davao Death Squad — issues that became separate articles of impeachment in the consolidated fourth complaint.
The next two petitions were more concise, with the third supposedly being the strongest, but the same insiders claimed that on their own, they weren’t solid enough to withstand scrutiny in the later stages of the impeachment process.
The House members “were on a wait-and-see approach during the Christmas break and the month of January,” another source said, but other lawmakers admitted that informal conversations still continued.
“As far as party consultations are concerned, it’s been ongoing internally since the first impeachment complaint has been filed,” Iloilo 3rd District Representative Lorenz Defensor said.
Almost dead
Still, for a time, it seemed that the impeachment effort was dead in the water.
House Secretary General Reginald Velasco came up with numerous excuses to justify the delay in the transmittal of the complaints to Speaker Romualdez’s office, the most notable of which was that he was waiting for the submission of a fourth petition to be filed by complainants who notified him in advance.
Without Velasco’s endorsement, specific constitutional deadlines won’t be activated, such as the number of days Romualdez had to endorse the complaint to the justice committee, or how long the panel could tackle the cases before submitting its findings to the plenary.
The clock was ticking, as the House and the Senate were scheduled to hold their last plenary session in the first week of February. They were to go on a standard break in time for the three-month campaign season, and were not scheduled to reconvene until June, a month after the elections, and just before the term of the current batch of House lawmakers expires.
But the Constitution also provides a valid shortcut to impeaching an official, and it’s a tested one. Within a day in 2011, the House impeached then-chief justice Renato Corona after majority of lawmakers signed a hastily-drafted complaint. The document, unlike in other instances of impeachment, did not have to pass through the justice committee, and was immediately transmitted to the Senate.
Lawmakers would again traverse that road more than 12 years later.
From Our Archives
Tides turning
Three sources familiar with the dealings of the House majority explained why Duterte’s impeachment pushed through despite Marcos’ public opposition to it.
The first factor, they said, was the simultaneous rallies on January 31 in Metro Manila, which, according to them, indicated that there was clamor in favor of Duterte’s impeachment. It is interesting to note though that the crowd size of those gatherings were no match to the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) rally against her impeachment earlier that month, attended by over a million people.
The second factor, according to them, was Malacañang’s seemingly diminished aversion towards the impeachment effort. In fact, after the INC rally, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile, in a social media post, questioned the logic of the demonstration and the “very detrimental precedent” it could set when “impeachment is a just constitutional process.”
While Marcos subsequently maintained he was still against impeachment, he said he agrees with Enrile’s opinion.
“Malacañang did say that they will not get in the way of a co-equal branch. That was in a way very reassuring,” one congressman told Rappler.
A week before the House’s impeachment of Duterte, the plans were set in motion.
Two sources said the chamber’s legal team coordinated with volunteer lawyers, some coming from impeachment groups, to consolidate the three complaints into one. A draft was written over the weekend after the Friday rallies on January 31.
On Monday, February 3, Amando Virgil Ligutan, legal counsel of the third complaint, presented to the media fresh arguments on why there is still time to put the VP on trial in the event she is impeached by the House.
Some lawmakers on record and on background later name-dropped him as among those who worked on the fourth draft, and when asked about the feasibility of an impeachment trial at the Senate, they echoed talking points Ligutan raised first to the press a few days prior. (READ | [OPINION] Not out of time: Sara Duterte can still be impeached)
On Tuesday, February 4, Rappler learned that there was a quiet effort to secure lawmakers’ commitment to sign the fourth complaint during a caucus on Wednesday, the last day of plenary session before adjournment.
Surigao del Norte 2nd District Representative Ace Barbers told Rappler that caucus had been set a week prior. But some lawmakers claimed they were only informed of the meeting Tuesday night. Caloocan 2nd District Representative Mitch Cajayon Uy said the message she received came from Speaker Romualdez’s office; other sources said the notice was sent by their own party leaders. The messages supposedly did not explicitly say that the meeting would be about impeachment, but they already had a hunch.
“See you at Romualdez Hall,” Taguig-Pateros Representative Pammy Zamora told reporters, when asked what the invitation said. The multi-function room is named after Daniel Z. Romualdez, House speaker from 1957 to 1962. He was the first cousin of Imelda Marcos, mother of the incumbent president and former first lady.
Day of reckoning
The following is an attempt to chronicle what happened in the meeting based on the recollection of sources who were in Romualdez Hall and who subsequently spoke with Rappler.
During the caucus, the seven articles of impeachment were presented to most congressmen for the first time. Insiders said the meeting was meant to be an “open forum,” but the House leadership was nonetheless prepared with the logistics necessary to realize the buzzer-beater impeachment move. For example, lawyers were there to help facilitate lawmakers’ affidavits to verify that they had read the complaint.
There was little resistance to the agenda of the meeting. Only Cagayan de Oro 2nd District Representative Rufus Rodriguez opposed the method by which Duterte would be impeached. He wanted the complaint to go through the justice committee, but doing so would essentially kill the impeachment effort due to time constraints.
To reset the tone of the meeting, Camarines Sur 2nd District Representative LRay Villafuerte, president of the House’s second largest bloc National Unity Party (NUP), insisted to his colleagues that impeaching Duterte was an issue of accountability. Two sources confirmed that in his speech, he mentioned the word “sanctions” in relation to party members who would refuse to sign the complaint. It was unclear if he was joking.
Other party leaders who spoke in the caucus to support the impeachment call include Deputy Speaker Jay-Jay Suarez of Lakas CMD, Representative Barbers of the Nacionalista Party, Quezon 1st District Representative Mark Enverga of the Nationalist People’s Coalition, and Deputy Speaker Raymond Mendoza of the Party-List Coalition Foundation.
Rappler reached out to all names mentioned to clarify or expound on their roles in the caucus, but only two replied. Mendoza said the only speech he delivered was in the plenary about the proposed wage increase two days prior. Barbers told Rappler he was only speaking as a quad committee co-chair, presenting to the body the findings of his investigation panel.
There was little doubt that the House leadership would not get the numbers to impeach the Vice President. The minimum number needed was 102, but the final number ended up being 215, or more than two-thirds of the House. Even Representative Roman, who said in December she won’t support Duterte’s impeachment, was one of the signatories.
Must Read
Publicly, House members who did not back the complaint were either Duterte supporters who weren’t tapped by the majority to sign, or those who could not risk upsetting the loyal pro-Duterte base and Iglesia Ni Cristo bloc voters in their districts, where a few thousand votes can dictate the outcome of tight local races.
Senior Deputy Majority Leader Sandro Marcos was the first to sign the articles of impeachment, and Speaker Romualdez was the last to affix his signature. Both were present during the caucus, but it was unclear if either delivered a speech.
“Someone said they want to dig up my grandfather’s remains and throw them into the West Philippine Sea, and said they want to kill the President and the First Lady, who are my parents, and want to kill the Speaker. Why would people be surprised that I signed?” the President’s son said two days after Duterte’s impeachment.
Aftermath
The resounding rebuke of Duterte in the House on February 5 was an unprecedented move. She became the first vice president to be impeached, only the second official in the constitutional line of succession after former president Joseph Estrada in 2000.
The House wants to come out with all guns blazing in the second half of the process — the trial. Prosecutors project confidence in the articles of impeachment they transmitted to the Senate, and are providing a glimpse of their tactics, such as their future request to subpoena Duterte’s bank records.
One source said an impeachment secretariat is set to convene weekly from then on. The House will also soon name a list of private prosecutors and other key roles. Two sources floated Barbers’ name as potential spokesperson, and either Deputy Speaker Suarez or Senior Deputy Speaker Dong Gonzales as potential impeachment manager, but these are not yet final.
“If it’s not in conflict with the campaign, why not? I’m okay with it,” said Barbers, who who was a member of the Spice Boys, a group of young lawmakers in the 90s who played a pivotal role in Estrada’s eventual ouster.
Duterte’s impeachment creates a political firestorm in the Philippines, and opens a legal can of worms, sparking curiosity on why the House pushed through with Duterte’s impeachment. Can the Senate conduct a trial during the break? Can the complaint be passed over to the next batch of lawmakers? Can the Vice President still be punished with disqualification from public office if she preempts the trial with her resignation?
The political chaos also muddies an already competitive campaign period that is crucial for seven reelectionist senators, who as potential trial judges will likely be asked repeatedly about their position on Duterte’s potential conviction.
The Vice President, who in the past offered broad-stroke denials on many allegations thrown at her, just downplayed the indictment against her by the lower chamber.
“It’s more painful to be left by your boyfriend or girlfriend than to be impeached by the House of Representatives,” she said.
Invisible hand
Marcos said he had nothing to do with the impeachment of the Vice President, but his denial is one that’s difficult to swallow.
It is commonly understood in Philippine politics that a House dominated by allies of the administration submits to the whims of the President, especially in the early years of his rule, when he is at the peak of his power and is years away from becoming a lame duck.
That is accentuated by the fact that the House Speaker is Marcos’ cousin, that the President’s son is the number one signatory to the articles of impeachment, and that both Marcos and Romualdez have an ax to grind with the Dutertes.
For Aquino-era presidential political adviser Ronald Llamas, the media’s go-to political analyst in the post-Rodrigo Duterte Philippines, the naked truth is that the Marcoses cannot allow the Dutertes to reclaim Malacañang in 2028.
“It is clear that if the Dutertes return to power, there will be hell to pay,” Llamas told Rappler. “The assassination threat made by Sara against Marcos, the First Lady, and the Speaker, I think those are real threats. It’s not just an issue of political annihilation, but physical annihilation.”
Lawmakers insist that Duterte’s impeachment is part of their constitutional duty to hold an erring official to account. Some observers say it’s about personal interests and political survival.
In Marcos 2.0 Philippines, both things can be true. – Rappler.com
