Why Sara Duterte faces a twin investigation—and what makes them different
MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal troubles continue to mount as the Ombudsman began its investigation into the alleged misuse of confidential funds. And with the impeachment trial hanging over her head, what do these parallel probes mean?
The simultaneous investigations raise questions about procedure, jurisdiction, and public accountability.
Why is the Ombudsman investigating Duterte?
The Ombudsman has launched its preliminary investigation into activities of Duterte, acting on the committee report of the House of Representatives committee on good governance and public accountability. The panel had discovered anomalous receipts in Duterte’s offices in relation to the P125 million in confidential funds in the Office of the Vice President.
The Ombudsman has asked Duterte and several other officials from the vice president's agency and Department of Education to file their counter-affidavits.
What's the difference between the two probes?
Impeachment is a constitutional process exercised solely by Congress to hold high-ranking officials—such as the president, vice president, members of the Supreme Court, constitutional commissions, and the Ombudsman—accountable for impeachable offenses, including treason, graft, bribery, and corruption.
The House of Representatives must first file verified articles of impeachment. If accepted, the Senate conducts the trial. While impeachment entails a formal trial, it does not lead to imprisonment; rather, it results in removal from office and permanent disqualification from holding public office.
In contrast, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over public officials across all branches of government. It can initiate investigations based on complaints or on its own, and has the authority to file cases with the Sandiganbayan, a special anti-graft court that tries civil and criminal charges against public officials. A conviction there could result in imprisonment—unlike in impeachment proceedings.
A Sandiganbayan conviction could result in imprisonment—unlike in impeachment proceedings.
While both are meant to seek accountability, the impeachment process is a separate procedure from the Ombudsman probe.
How does the Ombudsman probe intersect with the impeachment?
The Ombudsman’s swift response to the House committee report caught many off guard. The government body is typically known for taking time before launching formal investigations and filing cases.
The House only recommended the filing of charges earlier this month. House Prosecutor and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua, named as the nominal complainant, confirmed the Ombudsman had already acted on the panel’s findings.
At a press briefing on Monday, June 23, Chua called the move “surprising,” noting that the Ombudsman had previously said in 2024 that it had no jurisdiction over the case. “By acting on our committee report, their opinion might have changed,” he said in Filipino.
Chua added that the panel would cooperate fully with the Ombudsman’s probe.
Unusual timing, process deviations. Ombudsman Samuel Martires, an appointee of Sara’s father ex-president Rodrigo Duterte, is set to retire on July 27. And it was not just the Ombudsman's speed that was unusual for Chua. Himself a lawyer, he pointed to another procedural anomaly: the lack of a separate fact-finding mission before the preliminary investigation.
He also said that the probe running concurrently with the impeachment process was unorthodox. “Ang pagkakaalam ko po, doon po sa kanilang mandato ay dapat ay antayin muna ang magiging resulta ng impeachment bago mai-file yung mga kaakibat na [kaso],” he said.
(From what I know, in their mandate, they should wait for the results of the impeachment before filing the cases.)
Still, Chua said that the Ombudsman adopting their committee report despite it not having evidence attached was a good sign. He said the Ombudsman found probable cause to investigate.
Is it double jeopardy for Sara?
Some have questioned whether Duterte could be subjected to double jeopardy—a legal principle that prohibits a person to be tried for the same offense twice. But legal experts disagree.
UP constitutional law professor Dante Gatmaytan told Philstar.com that for double jeopardy to apply, the accused must have already been charged in court, arraigned, and either convicted, acquitted, or had the case dismissed.
“Proceedings in the Office of the Ombudsman and the Senate impeachment court are not criminal proceedings. There is no arraignment,” Gatmaytan said.
Chua likewise said that Duterte’s case does not fall under double jeopardy.
Still, he acknowledged that the dual proceedings may influence public perception. For him, whatever the impression is has yet to be seen.
- Latest
- Trending
