The second day of deliberations inside the House of Representatives of the Philippines was supposed to be technical — a sober parsing of constitutional language, jurisdictional limits, and the mechanics of impeachment.

Instead, it became a high-stakes legal duel that may define the trajectory of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.

At the center of the storm stood Congressman Rufus Rodriguez, who delivered a pointed argument that could, if sustained, effectively gut a significant portion of the complaint: Ground Two, which revolves around the alleged misuse of confidential funds during Duterte’s tenure as Secretary of Education.

Rodriguez did not mince words.

“This committee has no jurisdiction over acts committed as Secretary of Education,” he argued. “We are here to hear impeachment complaints against the Vice President — not against a department secretary.”

It was a statement that cut straight to the constitutional core.

And it ignited a clash that exposed deep divisions within the Justice Committee.

The Constitutional Line in the Sand

Rodriguez anchored his argument on Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution — the provision enumerating impeachable officials: the President, the Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, members of Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman.

The Secretary of Education is not on that list.

The logic, as Rodriguez framed it, was simple:

If the impeachment complaint cites actions Duterte allegedly committed while serving as Secretary of Education, then those acts fall outside the jurisdiction of the House when acting as an impeachment body.

He emphasized the structural distinction under Executive Order No. 292, the Administrative Code of 1987: the Office of the Vice President is separate and distinct from executive departments like the Department of Education.

Separate budgets. Separate mandates. Separate lines of authority.

“Impeachment judgment extends only to removal from the office of Vice President,” Rodriguez stressed. “We cannot rule on alleged violations committed as Secretary of Education.”

And then came the procedural bombshell: he moved that portions of Ground Two be dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction.

If granted, it would strip away one of the complaint’s most controversial pillars.

A Committee Divided

But Rodriguez’s interpretation was not uncontested.

Congressman Joel Chua pushed back, citing Article VII, Section 3 of the Constitution: the Vice President may be appointed to a Cabinet position without confirmation.

The implication? The vice presidency and cabinet role were not entirely severable identities.

Duterte’s appointment as Secretary of Education was possible precisely because she was Vice President.

Thus, Chua argued, acts performed in that concurrent capacity cannot be artificially isolated.

“She is the only Cabinet member who does not need confirmation,” Chua emphasized. “Why? Because she owes her mandate to the people as Vice President.”

To separate her actions as DepEd Secretary from her accountability as Vice President, critics argued, would create a loophole large enough to drive a political crisis through.

If a Vice President could shield questionable conduct simply by performing it under a concurrent appointment, what would prevent future administrations from exploiting that distinction?

The Confidential Funds Controversy

Ground Two focuses on allegations involving confidential funds during Duterte’s time at the Department of Education.

The complaint alleges irregular disbursements, questionable certifications, and what critics describe as a pattern or “modus” of handling funds.

Rodriguez countered that the complaint fails to establish that the money was personally misused or illegally appropriated.

“The narrative stops at military officers,” he said, noting that the complaint allegedly does not show that funds landed in the Vice President’s hands.

He underscored a fundamental legal principle: movement of funds alone does not equal corruption.

Confidential funds, by their nature, involve money changing hands in ways not publicly itemized. To assume illegality without direct proof, Rodriguez warned, would amount to conjecture.

He went further, cautioning against what he called a “fishing expedition” — reframing alleged offenses midstream to fit whatever evidence emerges.

“If the original theory is misuse of funds,” he argued, “it cannot suddenly morph into betrayal of public trust simply to survive scrutiny.”

For Rodriguez, impeachment must rest on precise, well-pleaded facts — not evolving narratives.

Betrayal of Public Trust: A Broad Net

The endorsers of the complaint responded with a broader constitutional lens.

Betrayal of public trust, they argued, is not a narrow charge. It encompasses culpable violations of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and high crimes — and can stand independently.

Under this reasoning, even if specific acts occurred during Duterte’s concurrent service as DepEd Secretary, they may still reflect on her fitness to hold the office of Vice President.

Impeachment, they insisted, is not merely about where the act occurred, but about whether the conduct undermines constitutional order and public confidence.

One member illustrated the point metaphorically: two hands may perform different functions, but they operate from the same brain.

The Vice President and the Secretary of Education roles, they argued, were embodied in the same individual.

To pretend otherwise would be legal fiction.

The Resignation Factor

Rodriguez also pointed to a practical complication: Duterte has already resigned as Secretary of Education.

If she no longer holds the position, how can the House proceed with allegations tied to that office within an impeachment framework designed to remove her as Vice President?

This, he suggested, underscores the mismatch between Ground Two’s allegations and the committee’s jurisdiction.

However, critics responded that resignation does not erase past conduct, particularly if it reveals patterns relevant to constitutional accountability.

Impeachment, they emphasized, is not a criminal trial. It is a political-constitutional process assessing fitness to remain in high office.

Jurisdiction vs. Accountability

The heart of the debate lies in a tension familiar to constitutional democracies:

Where does jurisdiction end and accountability begin?

Rodriguez’s camp insists on strict textualism: impeachment applies only to acts performed within the specific office enumerated.

The opposing view warns that such rigidity could allow high officials to evade scrutiny by compartmentalizing misconduct under secondary appointments.

If the House adopts Rodriguez’s position, Ground Two could be significantly weakened or dismissed.

If it rejects his interpretation, the committee affirms a broader reading of impeachment power.

Either way, the implications extend beyond this case.

Political Undercurrents

While the arguments were framed in constitutional language, political observers note the broader stakes.

Vice President Duterte remains a formidable political figure, with strong public support and national visibility.

An impeachment battle inevitably reverberates toward the 2028 presidential race.

Some critics of the complaint argue that the proceedings are less about legal accountability and more about political positioning.

Supporters counter that shielding powerful officials from scrutiny would be a far greater threat to democracy.

Inside the committee room, however, members insist they are focused on sufficiency — not strategy.

The Standard of “Sufficiency in Substance”

At this stage, the committee is not deciding guilt.

It is determining whether the complaint contains a recital of ultimate facts that, if proven, would constitute an impeachable offense.

Rodriguez’s argument hinges on the claim that Ground Two fails this test because it falls outside jurisdiction.

Opponents maintain that the complaint sufficiently alleges betrayal of public trust connected to Duterte’s conduct as Vice President in concurrent capacity.

The chair allowed Rodriguez to reply in detail, acknowledging the significance of the jurisdictional issue.

The exchange was intense but procedural — a reminder that impeachment is as much about legal thresholds as political will.

The Ombudsman Angle

Rodriguez also noted that cases related to confidential funds have reportedly been filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.

Impeachable officials, however, cannot be removed by the Ombudsman — only by impeachment.

This overlap creates a complex legal landscape.

If acts committed in a concurrent capacity can be pursued through ordinary administrative or criminal channels, does impeachment become redundant?

Or does impeachment remain the ultimate constitutional check when public trust is at stake?

These are not abstract questions. They shape how future administrations navigate dual roles and overlapping authorities.

A Defining Moment

As the session concluded, it was clear that the battle over Ground Two was more than procedural sparring.

It was a defining moment in how the House interprets its constitutional mandate.

Will it adopt a narrow reading that confines impeachment strictly to acts within the enumerated office?

Or will it embrace a broader doctrine that evaluates the totality of an official’s conduct, even in concurrent roles?

The answer will shape not only the fate of this complaint, but the contours of impeachment jurisprudence in the Philippines.

Beyond the Legal Text

Outside the chamber, public opinion is divided.

Supporters of Duterte see the impeachment effort as politically motivated.

Critics view it as a necessary test of accountability.

Within the halls of Congress, however, the debate has crystallized around one word: jurisdiction.

Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss portions of Ground Two may not immediately end the complaint.

But it forces the committee — and the nation — to confront a fundamental question:

Can constitutional accountability be compartmentalized?

As the Justice Committee proceeds, one thing is certain: the outcome will resonate far beyond the technicalities of Executive Order 292 or Article XI.

It will speak to how the Philippines balances law and politics, text and intent, power and responsibility.

And in a democracy where institutions are constantly tested, that balance may be the most important verdict of all.