The House prosecution team stated that a proposed compromise to convict Vice President Sara Z. Duterte in the Senate impeachment trial while preserving her eligibility to run for public office has no constitutional basis.
House private prosecutor and legal spokesperson Atty. Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. rejected the suggestion when asked whether Duterte could be removed from her post without incurring a ban on seeking future elective positions.
“That has no basis and it’s inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution. Which provides that if an impeachable officer is found guilty of the charges and the articles of impeachment, then she should suffer the penalties of removal from office and perpetual disqualification,” Tolosa stressed.
Under Article XI, Section 3(7) of the Constitution, judgment in impeachment proceedings extends to removal from office and disqualification from holding any office under the Republic, while leaving a convicted official subject to separate prosecution under ordinary laws.
The legal distinction holds political relevance as Duterte has been consistently cited as a potential presidential candidate for 2028, though the Senate impeachment court has yet to deliver a verdict in her case.
Tolosa maintained that consolidating the prosecution’s case around Article II does not alter the constitutional penalties being sought if the senator-judges vote to convict.
“You only need to secure conviction for one, so that we will get the penalty under the constitution, which is removal from office and perpetual disqualification from holding public office,” Tolosa explained.
The prosecution previously withdrew Articles I, III, and IV to concentrate exclusively on Article II, which alleges unexplained wealth, inaccurate financial disclosures, and undisclosed business interests attributed to Duterte.
Tolosa stated that the constitutional penalties remain identical regardless of how many individual articles are submitted for final judgment.
“There’s because there’s the two penalties here, will just be the same regardless of the number of articles that remain,” Tolosa also said.
Duterte’s defense team has denied all allegations of wrongdoing and is scheduled to present evidence countering the Article II charge when trial proceedings resume.
The prosecution clarified that its decision to drop the three other charges should not be viewed as a formal determination of guilt, as that authority rests solely with the sitting senator-judges.
“So for us what matters here is that at the end of the day, the question we’re aiming to answer is the Vice President’s continued fitness to remain in office,” Tolosa added.
The final judgment and the implementation of any constitutional penalties will ultimately be determined by the Senate impeachment court following the completion of the defense presentation and subsequent deliberations.