ARTICLE IV of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte calls for her conviction, immediate removal from office, and permanent disqualification from holding any government position, citing offenses that include culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.
The complaint also asks the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to declare her liable for criminal prosecution under Philippine laws. These severe sanctions are being sought in connection with allegations that she plotted to assassinate top officials, issued serious threats, and incited sedition and political unrest.
Central to the charges is her public admission during an online briefing on November 23, 2024, that she had instructed someone to kill President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta‑Marcos, and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez if harm befell her. She repeated and confirmed this in a later interview and never retracted or apologized for the statements—instead describing them as conditional, a defense the complaint rejects as legally irrelevant. Authorities treat threats against the President as matters of the highest national importance, and the National Bureau of Investigation has already filed three counts of grave threats against her over these and earlier remarks expressing violent intent toward the Chief Executive.
The article also frames her actions as part of a broader campaign to destabilize the government and undermine democratic institutions. It points to a series of events and pronouncements — including family members’ speeches, her resignation as education secretary, refusal to attend key national events, participation in rallies questioning the administration’s legitimacy, and alleged plans for civil disobedience and armed action — as evidence of efforts to erode legal authority and incite disorder. Combined with other impeachment articles dealing with financial misconduct and legal violations, these acts are presented as proof of a consistent pattern of behavior that disregards the rule of law and violates the trust of the people.
According to the complaint, such conduct strikes at the very foundation of the country’s democratic system and renders her completely unfit to serve in public office, especially as the second‑highest official of the land. “Respondent’s acts betray the very fabric of democracy,” the article states, emphasizing that removal from office and a lifetime ban from public service are necessary consequences of her alleged offenses.
