No More Hell Run By Filipinos 3: Sara Duterte Stole 100 Million Pesos And No One Cares

It is an indisputable fact that Vice President Sara Duterte is a lying thief. She claims to have spent over 100 million pesos in the space of a week with some of the recipients being totally made up like Mary Grace Piattos. When questioned before the House Sara bizarrely claimed she was being persecuted instead of revealing how the money was spent. It's no wonder then that the House floated several impeachment complaints before compiling them into one complaint. 

The Senate was then handed the impeachment complaint but they REFUSED to act on it. And maybe that was for the best. If Sara had been found guilty, as she undoubtedly is, the verdict would have been tossed because the Philippines Supreme Court has ruled the impeachment complaint is unconstitutional. 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2087079/supreme-court-impeachment-complaint-vs-sara-duterte-unconstitutional

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte is unconstitutional, effectively halting the Senate’s scheduled trial.

In a decision handed down Friday, “the Supreme Court en banc declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte are unconstitutional,” SC spokesperson Camille Ting said.

She said: “The Supreme Court has ruled that the House impeachment complaint versus Vice President is barred by the one-year rule and that due process or fairness applies during all stages of the impeachment.”

“Therefore, the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings,” Ting said.

The high court’s 13-0 decision, which is immediately executory, was issued just days before the Senate was set to reconvene and proceed with the trial.

The 1987 Constitution provides that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”

In this case, four impeachment complaints were filed against the Vice President before the House of Representatives by various groups on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024. The fourth complaint was lodged by a resolution approved by more than one-third of House members on February 5, 2025, which was transmitted as the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate on the same day.

The ruling, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, differentiated the first three complaints—filed by citizens under Article XI, Section 3(2)—from the fourth complaint, which was filed under Section 3(4) via a verified resolution signed by at least one-third of House members.

The court ruled that the first three complaints were “archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed” on February 5, 2025, meaning no new complaint can be initiated until after February 6, 2026.

The SC emphasized that the one-year ban is counted from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or otherwise rendered no longer viable.

It also reminded the House of Representatives that such complaints must be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days from endorsement, and that the Constitution does not grant discretion to the House Speaker or Secretary General to delay this.

The Supreme Court outlined the following guidelines to ensure fairness in impeachment proceedings:

1. The Articles of Impeachment and supporting evidence must be included when shared with House members for endorsement.

2. The evidence must be sufficient to support the charges.

3. The Articles and evidence must be made available to all members of the House of Representatives.

4. The respondent must be given an opportunity to respond to the charges and evidence before transmittal to the Senate, regardless of the number of endorsements.

5. The House must be allowed reasonable time for independent deliberation.

6. The charges must involve impeachable offenses committed in relation to the respondent’s official duties and within the current term, and must be of sufficient gravity.

7. For complaints filed under Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution, the House must provide the respondent with a copy of the Articles and evidence, allow a reasonable period to respond, and circulate both the evidence and the respondent’s comment to all members prior to the one-third vote for transmittal to the Senate.

At the press conference, Ting clarified that the ruling does not absolve the Vice President from any of the charges.

“Our ruling does not absolve petitioner Duterte from any of the charges. Any ruling on the charges against her can only be accomplished through another impeachment process, followed by a trial and conviction by the Senate,” the SC said.

“It is not our duty to favor any political result. Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the Rule of Just Law,” the court emphasized.

“The end does not justify the means. There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time. This is what the Rule of Just Law means. This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment,” it added.

Although a motion for reconsideration may still be filed, the ruling is immediately executory, according to Ting. 

The House of Representatives impeached Duterte in February, citing an alleged threat she made during a November 23 online news conference to have President Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos, and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez assassinated if she were killed amid their political rift.

Duterte later said the remark was not a threat but an expression of concern for her own safety.

Other allegations included graft, corruption, sedition, terrorism, and failure to support Philippine efforts to oppose China’s aggressive actions in the West Philippine Sea.

She was also accused of supporting her father Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war, which allegedly led to extrajudicial killings in Davao City.

Among those who signed the impeachment resolution were Rep. Sandro Marcos, the president’s son, and Romualdez.

Last month, the Senate briefly convened as an impeachment court but returned the complaint to the House within hours, citing constitutional concerns. Some of Duterte’s allies, including Sen. Ronald dela Rosa, argued that the earlier House complaints already constituted proceedings and triggered the one-year bar.

Duterte, 47, is widely believed to be a contender for the 2028 presidential elections.

She was elected vice president in 2022 alongside Marcos but resigned from her Cabinet post as education secretary in 2024 amid growing tensions. Their alliance quickly deteriorated following accusations of weak leadership and corruption against Marcos and his allies.

Wow. The Supreme Court ruled so we must respect it right? That's what some Senators are saying.  

https://mb.com.ph/2025/07/25/move-on-na-heed-scs-decision-on-vp-saras-impeachment-case-some-senators-say

Some senators seem already keen on attending to other matters following the Supreme Court's decision declaring the articles of impeachment against the Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional on Friday, July 25.

Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said that while he cannot speak for or on behalf of his colleagues on this matter, but stated that the Senate has always been firmly committed to the rule of law, and that he expects the body, when they convene the 20th Congress, to take a collective stand by acceding to the High Court’s decision. 

"Nonetheless, I welcome this decision, which serves as a vital reminder that all efforts to hold public officials accountable must be firmly grounded in legality and due process," he said. 

"As a co-equal branch of government, we must abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even in a political process like impeachment proceedings, we must adhere to established procedures and due process to ensure that our actions are neither arbitrary nor solely driven by political agendas," he added. 

Estrada said that they can focus on more pressing issues confronting the country, as well as the rehabilitation of areas devastated by the spate of typhoons that have hit the country over the past several days. 

Meanwhile, Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa, a known Duterte ally, didn't shy away from expressing his elation to the ruling, stating that the "Holy Spirit" has defeated the "forces of evil". 

"When I moved for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint vs VP Sara, I was guided by the Holy Spirit. When the SC ruled it as unconstitutional, I’m sure they were guided also by the Holy Spirit," he said in a Facebook post. 

On the other hand, Senator Imee Marcos, a member of the Upper Chamber's Duter7, said that the decision of the Supreme Court should be respected. 

"To my fellow senators — let’s get back to work. Let’s focus on the welfare of the people," she said. 

"Let’s set politics aside for now,"  she added.

Bato was guided by the Holy Spirit? What the heck!? SO now the Holy Spirit supports graft? But Senator Estrada goes further and shows just how unimpartial he really is. 

https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/7/25/senate-impeachment-trial-court-to-vote-on-sc-ruling-estrada-says-2101

Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada on Friday said the Senate impeachment court will vote on the Supreme Court ruling effectively ending the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. 

"I am very much elated by the decision of the Supreme Court in declaring the impeachment case against Vice President Duterte as unconstitutional," Estrada said. "Time and again, even before, based on my interviews before, I have said always that impeachment against any public official is very divisive for our country."

"Now that the Supreme Court has already decided, we can continue on our legislative work. We can file bills that will redound to the benefit of our people. We will vote on the decision of the Supreme Court. Of course, we will have to abide by the decision of this Supreme Court," Estrada said in a phone interview.

This man is ELATED by the SC's decision and says "impeachment against any public official is very divisive for our country." Apparently Senator Estrada favors corruption! If a public official is accused of being corrupt and stealing millions of pesos Estrada DOES NOT WANT an investigation because it is divisive. 

Probably the most interesting thing about this matter is that the Supreme Court ruled on Sara's petition within a matter of weeks. Compare that to their ruling on Duterte's withdrawl from the ICC. Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC in 2018. A petition was filed before the Supreme Court but they did not make a ruling until 2021!

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67374

The Petitions are moot. They fail to present a persisting case or controversy that impels this Court's review.

Why did it take the SC THREE YEARS to rule on something so important and yet it took them a matter of weeks to rule on Sara Duterte's petition to junk her impeachment case? The world may never know. 

The only thing to do now is to wait until February 2026 and refile the same exact impeachment complaint with the same exact evidence. There is no doubt Sara is guilty as sin.  There is also a case filed before the Ombudsman so that is also something to watch. The gist of it is Sara stole millions and has gotten away with it and nobody cares.  These people need to be eliminated. It's another reason to end the hell run by Filipinos that is the Philippines.