House prosecution: VP Sara Duterte's 32 million votes not a 'license to misuse' government funds

House prosecution panel adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers on Tuesday (July 7, 2026) said Vice President Sara Duterte’s 32.2 million votes in the 2022 elections do not grant her a license to misuse government funds, amass unexplained wealth, commit bribery, or issue threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

These points are central to the allegations found in the Articles of Impeachment currently pending before the Senate impeachment court.

Barbers' comment came after the arguments raised by the Vice President's defense counsel on the first day of the impeachment trial (July 6, 2026).

 The defense argued that removing the Vice President would disenfranchise the 32.2 million citizens who voted for her in 2022.

In response, Barbers emphasized that a high electoral mandate does not grant an official license to commit alleged violations such as the misuse of government funds, bribery, or issuing threats against the President. He clarified that the impeachment mechanism exists under the 1987 Constitution specifically to ensure that the highest-ranking officials remain accountable to the public and to protect against the abuse of power.

The Articles of Impeachment are currently pending before the Senate impeachment court.

FIRST DAY OF VP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

The defense team for Duterte on July 6, the first day of the impeachment trial, argued that the impeachment case is an attempt to remove an official elected by more than 32 million Filipinos, while maintaining that the prosecution bears the burden of proving every allegation against her.

In her opening statement, lead defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison maintained that Duterte remains presumed innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution establishes its case.

"Ang malinaw na layunin sa likod ng mga paratang na ito ay ang pagpapatalsik sa isang bise presidenteng na binoto ng mahigit 32 milyong Pilipino at bunga ng kanilang malayang pagpapasya."

"The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden, the accused need not even offer evidence on her behalf, and she will be entitled to an acquittal. This is the law then. This is the law now."

Sison argued that the House of Representatives exceeded its constitutional role in the impeachment process, claiming lawmakers effectively conducted a "mini-trial" that went beyond merely initiating the complaint.

According to the defense, House prosecutors gathered and presented evidence outside the scope of the impeachment complaints, creating a narrative against Duterte before the case even reached the Senate.

"In that mini-trial, we saw how the purported pieces of evidence were curated to construct a narrative against the Vice President even before this case reaches trial."

"The articles of impeachment presented before this Court as an exercise of the House's power to initiate impeachment cases are, therefore, in sober truth, the product of an impermissible intrusion of clear constitutional boundaries."

Sison also dismissed allegations surrounding Duterte's confidential funds, saying the issues had already been repeatedly aired during congressional investigations since 2024 and should not substitute for proof before the impeachment court.

"We are not strangers to all these accusations, precisely because this was not the first time these narratives were foisted into the minds of the general public."

"We have heard the same tales and stories of these accusations since 2024, when the House conducted its quadcom hearings, and most recently the mini trial of its committee on justice. But what we must not forget amid all these accusations is the fundamental legal principle that the burden of proof never shifts."

The defense further argued that the constitutional guarantee of due process extends to impeachment proceedings, insisting that Duterte is entitled to the presumption of innocence throughout the trial.

"The Bill of Rights applies to the entire impeachment process, because in as much as our court recognizes that impeachment is a political process, it reminds us that it is not a purely political process, but a legal and constitutional mechanism."

"Thus, if we are to uphold the rule of law, serve justice, and invoke the accountability mechanism, then this court and we as a people must guarantee that all efforts to hold our leaders accountable must be done right. This we must not forget."

-Paraluman News