MANILA, Philippines — A lawmaker on Monday raised concerns over a circulating social media list claiming that several members of the House of Representatives had withdrawn their support for the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, as a House panel unanimously moved to elevate the case to the plenary.
The list, reportedly shared by Duterte’s supporters, surfaced at a time when Malacañang has intensified its campaign against disinformation.
The Palace had earlier warned of stricter action against the spread of fake news, following recent legal moves against individuals and groups accused of publishing misleading claims.
DOUBTS OVER ‘WITHDRAWAL LIST’
Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon questioned the credibility of the list, pointing out the inclusion of a non-existent name among the 15 lawmakers allegedly retracting their support.
“If the withdrawal is true, I only have one question: Is there a congressman named Bier Rodriguez? None,” said Ridon, a member of the House committee on justice.
The list reportedly included at least four members of the same panel that drafted the impeachment report.
HOUSE PANEL ADVANCES IMPEACHMENT CASE
Despite the controversy, the House committee on justice voted unanimously to forward the impeachment report to the plenary, marking a key step in determining whether the case will proceed to a Senate trial.
The 31-page report outlines several allegations against Duterte, including the alleged misuse of approximately P612.5 million in public funds.
Lawmakers also cited findings from parallel investigations that uncovered fictitious names, such as “Mary Grace Piattos”, listed as recipients of the Vice President’s confidential funds.
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS AND DEFENSE RESPONSE
Duterte has yet to issue a direct statement, but her legal counsel, Atty. Paolo Panelo submitted a 47-page affidavit disputing claims made by key witness Ramil Madriaga, who alleged knowledge of the Vice President’s financial dealings.
The affidavit was filed with the Taguig City Prosecutor’s Office, where Madriaga is facing a perjury complaint lodged by Duterte earlier this year.
NEXT STEPS: PLENARY AND SENATE TRIAL
The impeachment report will now be reviewed by the House committee on rules, led by Ilocos Norte Rep. Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos, who will determine the schedule for plenary debates.
Ridon said discussions could begin as early as May 5, with the 318-member House expected to decide within the next week whether to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Once transmitted, the Senate will convene as an impeachment court.
Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III said the chamber is constitutionally mandated to act once the articles are received.
“We need to follow the Constitution, which is to convene. It’s that simple,” Sotto said.
SERIOUS CHARGES DETAILED
Aside from fund misuse, the impeachment report includes allegations of bribery, unexplained wealth, and an alleged death threat against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Lawmakers backing the report emphasized that conviction on even a single article would be sufficient to remove Duterte from office and permanently bar her from holding any public position.
“The case is secure because it is supported by evidence and facts,” said Rep. Leila de Lima.
POLITICAL DIVIDE EMERGES
However, opposition voices questioned the motives behind the impeachment effort.
Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice described the proceedings as less about accountability and more about political rivalry.
“This is not about accountability. This is about partisan politics,” Erice said, framing the issue as a conflict between former political allies.
Meanwhile, Sen. Robinhood Padilla signaled that the minority bloc in the Senate would oppose convening an impeachment court, calling it part of parliamentary dynamics.
BACKGROUND
The impeachment process in the Philippines begins in the House of Representatives, where lawmakers determine probable cause.
If at least one-third of House members support the complaint, it is transmitted to the Senate, which then conducts a trial and votes on conviction.
Recent developments come amid heightened political tensions and increased scrutiny of government spending, particularly confidential and intelligence funds allocated to high-ranking officials.