With Vice President Sara Duterte facing her second impeachment, the country is once again watching a political and constitutional process unfold in the Senate. It has taken on the rhythm of something more familiar: a telenovela. There is a cast the public already knows by name, villains depending on who’s watching, and no shortage of betrayal. The hearings have brought familiar names, serious allegations, and legal debates into the spotlight. From confidential funds and unexplained wealth to questions about voting rules, impeachment has become part of everyday conversations. But this isn’t the first time the Philippines has witnessed something like this.

In one way, that is true: no Philippine official has ever been impeached twice. Supporters of the case call it an important constitutional process. Critics call it politically motivated. Both sides agree on one thing: impeachment itself is not new here. It has ended a presidency. It has removed a chief justice. Others changed the course of Philippine history.

So, how does impeachment actually work, and what happened to the officials who faced it before?

What is an impeachment?

Impeachment is how the Philippines removes its top officials. It applies to the President, the Vice President, Supreme Court justices, the Ombudsman, and heads of constitutional commissions. Grounds for impeachment include bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and violating the Constitution.

It is not a criminal trial. The only punishments are removal from office and a ban on holding office again. If a crime happened too, that’s handled separately, in a regular court.

So how does it work?

There are three steps, and most attempts never get past the second one.

It starts with a complaint. Any House member can file one. So can any citizen of the country if a House member agrees to sponsor it. This part is easy, which is why so many complaints pile up over the years.

Next, the House votes. A committee reviews the complaint first, then at least one-third of the House has to approve it. Once that happens, the official is “impeached.” That means accused, not removed.

Finally, the Senate holds a trial. The Senate becomes a court, House members act as prosecutors, and senators act as judges. It takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict an accused.

One more rule: the Constitution says no official can be impeached more than once in the same year. Remember this. It would matter later.

It is also worth remembering what an impeachment is not. Being impeached does not mean removal. It means the House of Representatives has found enough grounds to send the case to trial. History elsewhere makes the same point: Bill Clinton was impeached but was able to finish his term, and Donald Trump was impeached twice and later returned to office.

In the Philippines, the numbers cut the same way. The House only needed one-third of its members to impeach Sara Duterte. The Senate needs two-thirds to convict her, which means as few as nine senators voting to acquit, out of 24, would be enough to keep her in office.

The first impeachment complaints in Philippine history

The country’s impeachment history dates back to 1949, when President Elpidio Quirino faced allegations involving public funds used to renovate Malacañang Palace and supposed links to diamond smuggling. A congressional committee dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

In 1964, President Diosdado Macapagal faced a complaint over allegedly illegal rice imports intended to strengthen political support ahead of an election. It was also dismissed.

Two decades later, in 1985, 56 opposition lawmakers filed an impeachment complaint against Ferdinand Marcos Sr., accusing him of bribery, graft, unexplained wealth, and granting monopolies to cronies. The Batasang Pambansa dismissed the complaint after roughly five hours of debate. Although unsuccessful, the filing placed the accusations against Marcos on the public record.

Even Corazon Aquino faced an impeachment attempt. In 1988, two years after the EDSA Revolution, a complaint accused her of violating the Constitution. It ultimately failed.

These early cases established a recurring pattern: impeachment complaints could generate political attention without ever reaching a Senate trial.

Joseph Estrada and the impeachment trial that never finished

In 2000, President Joseph Estrada became the first Philippine president to undergo an impeachment trial.He faced allegations of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and constitutional violations. The accusations included receiving money from illegal gambling operations and diverting tobacco tax funds. It became the country’s first impeachment trial, and it played out on live television to a riveted nation.

But the trial took a dramatic turn when senators voted against opening a sealed envelope containing potential evidence. House prosecutors walked out in protest, and, within days, demonstrations followed. The protests grew into what became known as EDSA II. With military and Cabinet support withdrawn, Estrada left office in January 2001.

The impeachment trial never reached a verdict, making Estrada’s removal one of the most debated moments in the country’s political history.

The cases that changed the rules

Not every important impeachment case resulted in someone losing office. In 2003, an impeachment attempt against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. led to a landmark Supreme Court decision, Francisco v. House of Representatives. The ruling clarified the constitutional one-year restriction on initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official. That interpretation would become central to Sara Duterte’s first impeachment case more than two decades later.

Meanwhile, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo faced impeachment complaints every year from 2005 to 2008. The first three centered on allegations that the 2004 election was rigged, most notoriously through a leaked wiretap known as the “Hello Garci” scandal. The 2008 complaint folded in newer corruption allegations, including the NBN-ZTE broadband deal, the Northrail project, and a fertilizer fund scam. All four died in the House committee stage. She simply had the numbers, a reminder that in this process, votes decide everything long before evidence does.

Then came two notable cases in 2011. Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was impeached by the House but resigned before the Senate could try her. Then came Chief Justice Renato Corona, impeached in December 2011 on charges centered on unexplained wealth and failing to disclose it in his asset statements. On May 29, 2012, the Senate voted 20–3 to convict Corona, removing him from office. His case remains the country’s only completed impeachment trial resulting in conviction and removal.

Other impeachment attempts that didn’t lead to conviction

Several other high-ranking officials have faced impeachment complaints, with different outcomes. In 2014, complaints against President Benigno Aquino III involving the Disbursement Acceleration Program and a defense agreement with the United States were dismissed.

In 2017, a complaint against President Rodrigo Duterte failed to gain traction, while COMELEC Chair Andres Bautista resigned amid his own impeachment proceedings before the House could vote.

In 2019, then-Vice President Leni Robredo also faced a complaint that went nowhere. And in 2018, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno was cleared by a House committee to stand trial, but never got the chance: the Supreme Court instead removed her through a quo warranto ruling, voting 8-6 to void her appointment altogether. Critics have argued that this route let the Court sidestep impeachment, and the Constitution’s built-in protections for judicial independence, entirely.

Which brings us to the two impeachment attempts against Sara Duterte

Vice President Sara Duterte made Philippine history as the first official to be impeached twice, following the breakdown of her political alliance with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

In December 2024, four impeachment complaints were filed against her, involving allegations of misused confidential funds, threats against senior government officials, and links to extrajudicial killings during her father’s administration. The House approved her impeachment in February 2025 with 215 votes, but the Senate never reached a trial verdict. The Supreme Court later declared the complaint unconstitutional for violating the one-year restriction on impeachment proceedings. The Senate archived the case in August 2025, leaving Duterte in office.

When the restriction expired in February 2026, new complaints followed. The House impeached Duterte again, this time by a vote of 257–25 by a vote of 257–25, over allegations involving confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and threats against government officials. She became the first Philippine official ever impeached twice.

The Senate convened as an impeachment court soon after, though the trial proper didn’t formally begin until weeks later. On October 13, 2026, House prosecutors dropped three of the four impeachment articles dropped three of the four impeachment articles involving confidential funds, bribery, and grave threats, choosing to pursue the unexplained wealth charge. Duterte denies wrongdoing, and the case remains unresolved.

It is really all about the math

The biggest recent twist wasn’t testimony. It was a vote, and now it is headed to the Supreme Court.

Early on, the trial’s presiding officer set the number needed to convict at 16, two-thirds of the Senate’s 24 seats. That number assumes every senator shows up. But some cannot. One is in hiding. One is detained over a separate case, and one is abroad. Under a strict 16-vote rule, each absence works like a vote to acquit.

The impeachment court later voted 13-1 to change that. Now, only senators who can actually take part count toward the two-thirds. The presiding officer cast the one “no” vote but said he’d respect the ruling. Several senators from the minority side sat out the vote.

Duterte’s defense says it’s thinking about appealing, but hasn’t yet. Other people didn’t wait. A few private petitioners have already asked the Supreme Court to cancel the new rule and bring back the 16-vote threshold. The prosecution says it’s too early for the Court to step in, since the number only matters once the final vote happens.

Why failed impeachment attempts matter

Look back far enough, and a pattern shows up. Even the failed attempts mattered. Marcos’s complaint was a public statement that outlived its dismissal. Arroyo’s four survivals proved that House votes decide everything. The Davide case created the one-year rule, and decades later that rule voided Duterte’s first impeachment. Estrada’s trial showed what happens when the Senate and the street disagree. Corona’s conviction showed what a finished trial looks like.

Now the current impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is adding its own chapter. The Senate is rewriting how “two-thirds of all the members” gets counted, and the Supreme Court is already being asked to step in before a verdict is even reached. Analysts also see the trial as tangled up with bigger questions: the rift between the Marcos and Duterte camps, shifting alliances inside the Senate, and positioning ahead of the 2028 elections. Whatever the outcome, those larger fights aren’t going away when this trial ends.

The trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is far from being over. And however it may end, it will not be the last impeachment to reshape Philippine politics.

INDEX: A Timeline of impeachments

• 1949 — President Elpidio Quirino: complaint dismissed
• 1964 — President Diosdado Macapagal: complaint dismissed
• 1985 — President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.: dismissed by the Batasang Pambansa
• 1988 — President Corazon Aquino: complaint failed
• 2000–01 — President Joseph Estrada: impeached, trial cut short, ousted after EDSA II
• 2003 — Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.: case led to the one-year rule
• 2005–08 — President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo: four complaints, all failed
• 2011 — Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez: impeached, resigned before trial
• 2011–12 — Chief Justice Renato Corona: impeached and convicted, 20-3
• 2014 — President Benigno Aquino III: complaints dismissed
• 2017 — President Rodrigo Duterte: complaint failed; COMELEC Chair Andres Bautista resigned while facing impeachment
• 2018 — Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno: removed instead through a Supreme Court ruling, 8-6
• First attempt — VP Sara Duterte: voided by the Supreme Court, archived by the Senate
• Second attempt — VP Sara Duterte: impeached again; trial ongoing, new voting rule now before the Court