STOP SARA DUTERTE IMPEACHMENT
A Citizens' Constitutional Petition · Republic of the Philippines

Stop the Impeachment.
Defend the Mandate.

Duly elected Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte is being subjected to a second impeachment built on the same evidence the Supreme Court already rejected. This is not accountability. It is the constitutional reversal of an electoral mandate that 32,208,417 Filipinos delivered with their own hands.

Live Signatures
48
0.0% of goalTarget: 1,000,000

Sign the Constitutional Petition

Your signature is verified and submitted as a digital memorial of record.

The Mandate Being Reversed
0
Filipinos who elected and live-signed to defend the mandate(+48 total signatures)
61.53%
Of all Valid
Votes Cast
22M+
Vote Margin Over
Nearest Rival
#1
Highest Vote Count
For Any Office, Ever
1969
Last Time a VP
Won by This Margin

Thirty-two million Filipinos chose her. Two hundred fifty-seven congressmen now seek to undo that choice — without a trial, without evidence tested by a court, before the same sovereign people can renew or revoke the mandate in 2028.

Sign the Constitutional Petition

Your signature is verified and submitted as a digital memorial of record.

The Position
"We do not defend a person. We defend a Constitution that cannot survive being weaponized against whoever the majority happens to dislike today — and the largest electoral mandate in the history of this Republic."— Defensa Constitucional

We are not asking that Vice President Sara Z. Duterte be placed above the law. We are asking that she — and every Filipino official who comes after her — be tried under the law, not around it.

The 19th Congress impeached her on 5 February 2025. The Supreme Court, in its July 2025 ruling affirmed with finality on 28 January 2026, declared that impeachment unconstitutional for violation of the one-year bar and want of due process. Within four months, substantially the same charges, supported by substantially the same evidence, have been re-filed by largely overlapping complainants.

This is not jurisprudence. It is relitigation by repetition — an end-run around the Supreme Court that Article XI, Section 3(5) was specifically designed to prevent.

The Filipino people deserve accountability. They also deserve to live in a republic where impeachment is aconstitutional remedy, not a political guillotine deployed against the leading contender for the 2028 presidency.

Sign the Constitutional Petition

Your signature is verified and submitted as a digital memorial of record.

The Public Record · OVP Under VP Sara Z. Duterte, 2022–2025

A record of service, not the caricature you have been sold.

Behind the political theater of impeachment is a substantive operating record of an Office of the Vice President that delivered direct assistance to millions of Filipinos — across all regions, throughout disasters, and under a budget systematically reduced by the very Congress now sitting in judgment.

₱1.2B+
Medical Assistance Disbursed
Medical Assistance Program
Direct financial aid to 106,958 Filipino patients across 17 regions, channeled in partnership with DOH and 31 public hospitals nationwide.
22,470
Families Served
Burial Assistance Program
₱130.3 million in dignified burial assistance to bereaved indigent families — administered through the OVP Central Office and ten regional satellite offices.
772,910
Commuters Served
Libreng Sakay (Free Rides)
Free transport across Metro Manila, Bacolod, Cebu, and Davao — directly easing daily transport costs for working Filipinos.
115,045
Disaster-Hit Families Aided
Disaster Operations Center
162 relief operations executed; the Kalusugan Food Truck served frontliners, volunteers, and evacuees across multiple typhoons and crises.
12,079
Food Boxes Distributed (2024)
R.I.C.E. Program
Relief for Individuals in Crisis and Emergencies — rice, canned goods, and nutritional essentials to communities under economic and disaster pressure.
10
Regional Satellite Offices
Decentralized Service Delivery
First VP in Philippine history to operate a true field network: Dagupan, Cebu, Tacloban, Zamboanga, Davao, Tandag, Bacolod, BARMM, Isabela, Bicol — plus extensions in Lipa and Tondo.

Flagship Programs of the Office of the Vice President

i.
Medical Assistance Program
Direct hospitalization aid for indigent Filipinos
ii.
Burial Assistance Program
Dignity in grief for bereaved families
iii.
Mag Negosyo Ta 'Day
Livelihood & microbusiness empowerment for women
iv.
Pagbabago: A Million Learners & Trees
School supplies, hygiene kits, environmental stewardship
v.
PanSarap Project
Nutritional support for vulnerable communities
vi.
Kalusugan Food Truck
Mobile meal service for frontliners & evacuees
vii.
Disaster Operations Center
National coordination for relief & recovery
viii.
R.I.C.E. Program
Relief for Individuals in Crisis & Emergencies
ix.
"You Can Be VP" Program
Civic education for Filipino youth
x.
Libreng Sakay
Free transit for working-class commuters
COA
2024

Commission on Audit · Highest Available Rating

The OVP under Vice President Sara Duterte received an Unqualified Opinion from the Commission on Audit — the highest audit rating issued by the Republic — for fiscal year 2024. This is the formal accounting record. Not the press release.

Sign the Constitutional Petition

Your signature is verified and submitted as a digital memorial of record.

32,208,417 FilipinosThe Largest Mandate in HistoryUnqualified Audit Opinion · COA 2024₱1.2 Billion in Medical Aid10 Regional Satellite OfficesOne Constitution · One Mandate · One RepublicDefensa Constitucional
The Four Constitutional Infirmities

Four reasons this proceeding is void ab initio.

Each is independently sufficient. Together, they render the present impeachment a constitutional nullity that no Senate vote — for conviction or acquittal — can cure.

I.

The One-Year Bar (Art. XI, Sec. 3[5])

The Constitution permits only one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a one-year period. The Supreme Court ruled in Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261) that the bar attaches upon the filing of a verified complaint, not its disposition. The Court further clarified in its July 2025 ruling — affirmed with finality on 28 January 2026 — that the count begins from the first verified complaint and runs against any subsequent re-filing on substantially the same matter.

Francisco v. HRET (2003); Duterte v. HRET (2025)
II.

Res Judicata in Constitutional Process

When the Supreme Court voided the first impeachment en banc, the constitutional defect was adjudicated with finality. The refiling of substantially identical Articles, on substantially identical facts, by substantially overlapping complainants, is a collateral attack on a final judgment of the Court. No coordinate branch may relitigate what the judiciary has settled.

Art. VIII, Sec. 1; doctrine of finality
III.

Due Process Under Siege

A respondent who has mounted a constitutional defense against identical Articles, prevailed in the highest tribunal of the land, and is now compelled to defend the same charges suffers acontinuing deprivation of liberty, reputation, and the right to hold public office without due process. The Bill of Rights does not pause for political theater. Article III binds every branch — including the House sitting as a body of accusation.

Art. III, Sec. 1; Ang Tibay v. CIR (1940)
IV.

Reversal of an Electoral Mandate

Impeachment is not a recall. The Constitution does not contemplate using the impeachment process to reverse the largest electoral mandate in Philippine history before the sovereign people are given the opportunity to renew or revoke it. 32,208,417 Filipinos elected her. The proper forum to overturn that judgment is the 2028 ballot, not the chamber of a House majority allied with the incumbent.

Art. II, Sec. 1; Federalist No. 65

Sign the Constitutional Petition

Your signature is verified and submitted as a digital memorial of record.

Article-by-Article Counter-Defense · Second Impeachment Complaint

Every charge has an answer. Here are ours.

The consolidated Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House on 11 May 2026 advance four substantive charges. Each is constitutionally infirm or factually deficient. Each, on the existing record, fails the standard required for conviction in an impeachment court — proof, by the rules of evidence, of an impeachable offense as defined in Article XI, Section 2.

I.Alleged Misuse of ₱500M Confidential Funds (OVP) & ₱112.5M (DepEd)
The Charge

"The Vice President misused at least ₱500 million in confidential funds at the OVP and ₱112.5 million at the Department of Education, lacking proper documentation and audit trails."

The Defense

First: confidential funds are, by statutory design under the General Appropriations Act and COA Joint Circular No. 2015-01, classified expenditures whose detailed liquidation is privileged. The fact that supporting documents are not publicly disclosed is not evidence of misuse — it is the operating rule of the fund category itself, the same category utilized by every administration since the Aquino era.

Second: the Commission on Audit issued the OVP anUnqualified Opinion — its highest available rating — for fiscal year 2024. That is the formal, on-the-record judgment of the constitutional body charged with auditing public funds. The House cannot substitute its political conclusions for the technical findings of COA without due process.

Third: every peso has been the subject of legislative inquiry and COA review. The prosecution's case ultimately rests on the uncorroborated testimony of one former aide (Madriaga) whose credibility, motive, and corroboration are unestablished. That is not substantial evidence. That is hearsay dressed in a sworn affidavit.

GAA FY 2022–2024; COA JC 2015-01; COA Annual Audit Report on OVP (2024)

II.Alleged Unexplained Wealth & SALN Discrepancies
The Charge

"Bank transactions flagged by AMLC exceeding US$110 million cannot be explained by the Vice President's declared SALN, lawful income, or attributed business activities."

The Defense

First: impeachment is not the constitutional forum for SALN adjudication. Republic Act 6713 and Republic Act 3019 vest exclusive original jurisdiction over SALN disputes in the Office of the Ombudsman and, on indictment, the Sandiganbayan. These bodies have rules of evidence, rights of confrontation, and procedural safeguards that House proceedings categorically lack.

Second: AMLC flags are not findings. They are preliminary trigger reports that initiate — not conclude — investigation. Under R.A. 9160, as amended, the AMLC must independently establish probable cause through a covered transaction inquiry before any conclusion of unlawful conduct attaches. No such finding has been transmitted to a competent court.

Third: the alleged transactions implicate joint marital property and family business operations, the lawful sources of which are matters of evidence, not innuendo. The prosecution invites the Senate to convict on inference — a standard that would imperil every public official in the Republic, present and future.

R.A. 6713; R.A. 3019; R.A. 9160 (AMLA); Carpio-Morales v. CA (2015)

III.Alleged Threats Against the President, First Lady & former Speaker Romualdez
The Charge

"The Vice President plotted to have President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez assassinated, as evidenced by a recorded press conference statement."

The Defense

First: the statement was a conditional, contingent, hypothetical rhetorical formulation uttered in a press conference and amplified out of its full rhetorical context. Philippine jurisprudence on threats (RPC Art. 282; People v. Sayson) requires a specific, immediate, and credible intention to inflict harm — not rhetorical hyperbole, however ill-judged.

Second: impeachment is not the venue for a criminal charge of grave threats. If the prosecution genuinely believes the statement constitutes a criminal offense, the Department of Justice is the constitutional forum — with rules of evidence, the right of confrontation, and the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. No such criminal complaint has been filed and successfully prosecuted, because the elements cannot be met.

Third: an impeachable "high crime" within the meaning of Article XI, Section 2 must be an offense "of so serious a nature as to amount to a betrayal of public trust" (Federalist No. 65; Gutierrez v. HRET). A press-conference rhetorical flourish does not meet that constitutional threshold.

RPC Art. 282; People v. Sayson; Gutierrez v. HRET (2011)

IV.Alleged Bribery & Abuse of Power (Madriaga Testimony)
The Charge

"The Vice President ordered her former aide Ramil Madriaga to transport large sums of money, constituting bribery and abuse of power."

The Defense

First: the entire charge rests on the uncorroborated testimony of a single disgruntled former aide whose credibility, recall, and motive have never been tested under the rules of evidence — only ventilated in House committee hearings without cross-examination by the respondent.

Second: under People v. Caparas and the Best Evidence Rule, oral testimony as to the existence, nature, and lawful or unlawful character of monetary transfers cannot stand absent corroborating documentary, banking, or third-party witness evidence. None has been produced of the kind required for conviction in any criminal proceeding, much less impeachment.

Third: bribery (RPC Art. 210) requires a specific quid pro quo — a corrupt agreement to perform or refrain from a specific official act. The Articles do not specify what official act was bought or sold, by whom, for what consideration, on what date. The omission is not stylistic. It is fatal to the charge.

RPC Art. 210; People v. Caparas; Rules of Court, Rule 130

"In an impeachment court, as in any court, charges are not proven by repetition, indignation, or partisan majority. They are proven by evidence — competent, admissible, sufficient. On this record, none of the four Articles meets that burden."

Sign the Constitutional Petition

Your signature is verified and submitted as a digital memorial of record.

The Case for 2028

Why Vice President Sara Z. Duterte must run for President.

The impeachment is not merely an effort to remove a Vice President. It is a calculated effort to disqualify, in perpetuity, the leading candidate to succeed the incumbent — before 32 million Filipinos can again render their verdict at the ballot box. The case for her candidacy is not partisan affection. It is constitutional necessity. It is the only honest way to settle, democratically, the very questions her opponents wish to settle by procedure.

Reason I.

The People's Unfinished Verdict

In May 2022, 32,208,417 Filipinos placed her in the line of presidential succession with the largest mandate in the Republic's electoral history. That mandate is not a placeholder. It is a standing statement of who the Filipino people trust with executive power. The proper forum to revisit that judgment is the 2028 ballot — not the chamber of a House majority allied with her political rival. To deny the people the right to either reaffirm or withdraw that mandate is to deny popular sovereignty itself.

Reason II.

A Mindanao Presidency the Republic Still Needs

For seventy-five years of post-independence Philippine history, executive power flowed almost exclusively to and through Manila. The Duterte presidency in 2016–2022 broke that gravitational pull. The unfinished work of decentralizing prosperity, dignity, and decision-making to Mindanao, the Visayas, and the long-marginalized provinces is the central unresolved economic question of the Republic. She has the regional legitimacy, the operating record, and the political base to finish that work.

Reason III.

A Proven Executive, Not a Theoretical One

Three terms as Mayor of Davao City — one of the largest cities in the country by land area. Concurrent Vice President and Secretary of Education. A nationwide OVP field network of ten satellite offices, programs reaching millions, and a Commission on Audit Unqualified Opinion in 2024. This is an executive operating record measured in beneficiaries served and disasters responded to, not in op-eds written or speeches delivered. The Republic's next president must be able to run a government, not narrate one.

Reason IV.

A Bulwark Against Dynastic Capture

The impeachment is pursued by a House dominated by the incumbent's coalition. The Senate leadership shake-up that brought Senator Cayetano to the presidency was, by the admission of senators themselves, a reaction to the impeachment trajectory. If a sitting administration can engineer the removal — and perpetual disqualification — of the leading opposition candidate twelve months before an election, theRepublic ceases to be a democracy in any operative sense. Her candidacy is the empirical test of whether 1987 democracy still works.

Reason V.

The Quiet Filipino Deserves a Voice

Behind every press conference and every poll number are the families served by ₱1.2 billion in medical aid, the 22,470 families given dignified burials, the 772,000 commuters who rode free, the 115,000 families who received disaster relief. These are not statistics. They are constituencies. They are the Filipinos the political class does not see until election season. Her presidency would be their continuity. Their loss of that continuity is what is at stake.

Reason VI.

Because The Republic Must Decide

There are only two ways for a free people to resolve a sustained political conflict between a Vice President and a President: through the constitutional ballot, or through the constitutional manipulation of process. One path renews the legitimacy of the Republic. The other corrodes it. Let the people decide in 2028. Let the evidence — political, programmatic, moral — be tested where the framers intended: at the polling place, by the sovereign Filipino people themselves. That is not a partisan demand. It is the constitutional default.

The Choice Before the Republic

Either the largest mandate in Philippine history is honored by allowing the people to renew or revoke it in 2028 — or it is annulled by 257 representatives in a single afternoon.There is no third option.

Sign the Constitutional Petition

Your signature is verified and submitted as a digital memorial of record.

What They Say

"Let her answer. Let the evidence be tested."

She did. The Supreme Court ruled. The remedy for losing a constitutional case is not to refile the same case.

"No one is above the law."

Correct. Including the House. The one-year bar is not a courtesy. It is a discipline imposed by the Constitution on Congress itself.

"AMLC flagged ₱110 million. That alone justifies impeachment."

An AMLC flag is a preliminary trigger, not a finding. The proper venue is the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan — fora with rules of evidence. Not a House majority allied with the President.

"This is about due process."

Due process is the right of the accused, not a weapon against her. Forcing a citizen to defend the same charges twice is its opposite.

What We Say

The Supreme Court has already spoken. A coordinate branch may not unsay it.

If Congress disagrees with Francisco and the 2025 ruling, the remedy is constitutional amendment — not defiance dressed as a "new" complaint.

Accountability lives in the Ombudsman, AMLC, Sandiganbayan, and the regular courts.

Those venues have rules of evidence, rights of confrontation, and judicial supervision. The House sitting as a body of accusation has none.

The largest electoral mandate in Philippine history may not be annulled by 257 congressmen.

It may be renewed or revoked only by the same sovereign — the 32 million Filipinos who issued it. The ballot box is the constitutional forum.

The next Vice President impeached this way may not be one you like.

Rules abandoned for convenience are never reinstated when inconvenient. Defend the Constitution today, or lose it for everyone tomorrow.

Sign the Constitutional Petition

Your signature is verified and submitted as a digital memorial of record.

The Petition

Affix your name.
Reclaim the republic.

A formal citizens' petition to the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, sitting as Impeachment Court, urging dismissal of the Articles of Impeachment Against the Vice President for violation of the one-year bar, want of due process, and reversal of the largest electoral mandate in Philippine history.

Sign the Constitutional Petition

Your signature is verified and submitted as a digital memorial of record.

Answers to Honest Questions

Anticipated objections, answered.

Are you defending Sara Duterte personally?
No. We are defending the constitutional process and the 32 million-vote mandate the Filipino people delivered to her. If credible criminal allegations exist — money laundering, misuse of confidential funds, threats — those belong in the Ombudsman, Sandiganbayan, AMLC, and DOJ. Those venues have rules of evidence, rights of the accused, and judicial supervision. Impeachment is not a substitute.
Didn't the Supreme Court rule on technical grounds, not the merits?
The "one-year bar" is not a technicality. It is a substantive constitutional limitation deliberately placed in Article XI by the framers precisely to prevent repeated impeachments used to harass officials out of office. Calling a constitutional rule a "technicality" because one dislikes its outcome is precisely how constitutions die.
If the charges are serious, shouldn't they be aired publicly?
They will be — in the proper forum, under the proper rules, with proper safeguards. The Constitution does not say "serious allegations override procedural limits." It says the opposite: the more serious the proceeding, the more rigorous the limits must be.
Why is this happening now, in 2026?
The 2028 presidential cycle begins in earnest within twelve months. Conviction carries perpetual disqualification from public office. The strongest declared challenger to the administration's preferred successor is the present Vice President. We make no allegation. We only observe the timing.
What about the AMLC report of US$110 million in flagged transactions?
A "flag" under R.A. 9160 is a trigger for inquiry, not a finding of guilt. The constitutional venue to test such flags is the AMLC itself, the Office of the Ombudsman, and ultimately the Sandiganbayan — with rules of evidence and rights of confrontation. The Senate sitting as an impeachment court is not equipped, designed, or authorized to substitute for those bodies.
What if she really did say she would have Marcos killed?
If the statement meets the elements of grave threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, the constitutional forum is the Department of Justice. The DOJ has not filed and successfully prosecuted such a charge — because the elements of specificity, immediacy, and credibility are not met by a conditional rhetorical statement. Impeachment is not a substitute for failed criminal prosecution.
What happens if the Senate dismisses on constitutional grounds?
The constitutional order is preserved. Criminal and administrative investigations may proceed in the proper fora. The Vice President remains accountable — to the law, the Ombudsman, and ultimately the Filipino electorate in 2028. Nothing is lost except a procedurally defective vehicle.

Sign the Constitutional Petition

Your signature is verified and submitted as a digital memorial of record.