Testimonies after testimonies and documents after documents that lawmakers could no longer ignore
In a chamber where political loyalty and regional identity often move as one, the representatives of Eastern Visayas chose evidence over allegiance. Fifteen of seventeen lawmakers voted to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte on a second complaint — a near-unanimous verdict striking in its weight, given the Duterte family's deep roots in the region. Some who had resisted the first complaint reversed course, persuaded by the accumulation of testimony and documentary record. The case now passes to the Senate, where the question of removal will be tested against the full measure of constitutional judgment.
- A second impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte cleared the House with 257 votes, carrying with it the near-total backing of a region long tied to the Duterte name.
- Only two Eastern Visayas representatives broke from the bloc — one voting no from Southern Leyte, the province of the late Rodrigo Duterte's maternal roots, and one abstaining — exposing the limits of family loyalty in the face of formal charges.
- Several lawmakers who had shielded Duterte during the first complaint reversed their positions, among them Richard Gomez of Leyte, who publicly wrestled with the weight of his decision before casting his vote in favor.
- Supporters of impeachment cited not political calculation but the sheer volume of evidence — testimonies and documents presented in House hearings that, in their telling, left little room for doubt.
- The case now moves to the Senate, which will sit as an impeachment court, where the question of whether the Vice President should be removed from office will face its most consequential test yet.
In the Eastern Visayas delegation, the vote was nearly unanimous. Fifteen of seventeen representatives — drawn from individual districts and party-list groups alike — cast their ballots to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte on a second complaint. Only Roger Mercado of Southern Leyte voted against, and Christopherson Yap abstained. The rest moved the case forward to the Senate.
The region's alignment carried particular significance. Southern Leyte holds the Duterte family's maternal roots, and its political loyalties have long reflected that history. That Mercado alone dissented — and that he represented that very province — spoke to the pull of those ties. Yet it was not enough to hold the delegation together.
What sharpened the vote was the reversal of those who had previously held back. Richard Gomez, who opposed the first impeachment complaint, joined the majority this time. In a message to his constituents in Ormoc City, he acknowledged the difficulty plainly: the decision carried consequences, but he believed it was made for the good of the people he represented. Three representatives from Samar who had withheld support during the first complaint also voted yes, their shift reflecting what the House hearings had produced — testimony after testimony, document after document.
Jude Acidre of the Tingog party-list group put it directly: the grounds were compelling, and the evidence had accumulated beyond what lawmakers could reasonably set aside. Former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and House Minority Floor Leader Marcelino Libanan were among those who voted to impeach, lending the delegation's institutional weight to the outcome.
The case now moves to the Senate, which will convene as an impeachment court. There, the question of whether Sara Duterte should be removed from office will be tried in full. Eastern Visayas has spoken. Whether that voice carries the day depends on what the smaller chamber decides.
In the chamber where Eastern Visayas sends its voice to Congress, the vote was nearly unanimous. Of the seventeen representatives who hold seats from this region—thirteen from individual districts, four from party-list groups—fifteen cast their ballots to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte on a second complaint. Only two broke ranks: Roger Mercado of Southern Leyte voted no, and Christopherson Yap abstained. The rest, standing together, moved the case forward to the Senate.
The lawmakers who supported impeachment pointed to what they called compelling evidence. Documentary records of fund misuse. Testimony delivered before the House. Constitutional violations. A betrayal, they said, of the public trust. The complaint had already cleared the lower chamber with 257 votes in favor—a substantial majority—but the Eastern Visayas delegation's near-total alignment underscored something worth noting: even in a region historically close to the Duterte family, the case had moved enough representatives to act.
Southern Leyte's connection to that family runs deep. The late mother of former President Rodrigo Duterte was born there, roots that had long shaped the province's political alignments. That Mercado alone from the region voted against the impeachment, and that he represented that very province, suggested the weight of those ties. Yet even this was not enough to hold the region's delegation together.
What made the vote more striking was the reversal. Richard Gomez, the representative from Leyte's fourth district, had opposed the first impeachment complaint against Duterte. This time, he joined the 257. In a message to his constituents in Ormoc City and across his district, Gomez acknowledged the difficulty of the choice. "Whatever my decision will be, it will be for the good of our district and Ormoc City," he said. "I hope I make the correct choice, and I hope our constituents will support the decision. It's difficult because there are consequences in making decisions for our people." His words carried the weight of a man caught between loyalty and conviction, choosing the latter.
Gomez was not alone in changing course. Three representatives from Samar—Reynolds, Michael Tan, and Stephen James Tan—had reportedly withheld their support during the first complaint. This time they voted yes. They did not immediately explain their shift, but the pattern was clear: evidence presented in the House hearings had moved people.
Jude Acidre, representing the Tingog party-list group, articulated what had persuaded him. "There are compelling grounds to support the impeachment complaint," he said. The House proceedings had produced, in his words, "testimonies after testimonies and documents after documents" that lawmakers could no longer ignore. It was not rhetoric or political theater. It was the accumulation of fact.
Former House Speaker Martin Romualdez of Leyte's first district voted to impeach. So did Marcelino Libanan, the House Minority Floor Leader from the 4Ps party-list group. The delegation's weight, its seniority, its institutional memory—all moved in the same direction.
Now the case moves to the Senate, which will convene as an impeachment court. There, in that smaller chamber, the question of whether Sara Duterte should be removed from office will be tried. The Eastern Visayas delegation has spoken. What the Senate decides will determine whether that voice carries the day.
Citações Notáveis
Whatever my decision will be, it will be for the good of our district and Ormoc City. It's difficult because there are consequences in making decisions for our people.— Rep. Richard Gomez, Leyte 4th District
There are compelling grounds to support the impeachment complaint. The House hearings produced testimonies and documents that lawmakers could no longer ignore.— Rep. Jude Acidre, Tingog party-list
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did so many representatives change their minds between the first and second impeachment complaints?
The source doesn't give us their internal reasoning, but Acidre's comment about "testimonies after testimonies and documents after documents" suggests the House hearings produced something new—or at least something undeniable. Sometimes evidence accumulates until the weight of it becomes impossible to ignore.
Richard Gomez's statement sounds like a man in real conflict. What was he actually torn between?
Between his earlier position—which may have reflected his district's initial sentiment or his own judgment—and what the evidence in the second complaint seemed to show. He's essentially saying: my constituents guided me, but I also had to follow the facts as presented. That's not a comfortable place to be.
Southern Leyte voted against impeachment. Is that purely about the Duterte family connection?
Likely a factor, but we don't know for certain. Mercado's vote could reflect genuine disagreement with the complaint, or constituent pressure, or family ties, or all three. What's notable is that it was *only* Southern Leyte that held firm—suggesting the family connection mattered, but wasn't enough to sway the whole region.
What happens now in the Senate?
The Senate becomes a court. They'll hear the case, weigh the evidence, and decide whether to convict and remove her. The House has done its job—now it's up to them. The Eastern Visayas delegation's near-unanimous vote doesn't bind the Senate, but it does signal something about how the evidence is landing with lawmakers.
Why does it matter that three Samar representatives reversed course?
Because reversals suggest movement. If the evidence had been weak or obviously partisan, you wouldn't expect people to change their votes. The fact that multiple lawmakers shifted position between complaint one and complaint two suggests the second complaint presented something more substantial—or at least something they felt they couldn't vote against.