Plunder and multiple criminal charges have been filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Vice President Sara Duterte and 14 other officials over the alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds during her time at the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd), where she previously served as secretary.
Here’s what you need to know.
What are the charges?
The complaints accuse Duterte and her co-respondents of violating several laws, including plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended; bribery under Articles 210 and 212 of the Revised Penal Code; anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), particularly Sections 3(a) and 3(e); and betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution under Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
Who filed the complaints?
The complaints were filed on Friday, December 12, by a group of civil society leaders, academics, and youth advocates, including:
-
Fr. Flaviano Villanueva, 2025 Ramon Magsaysay Awardee
-
Fr. Roberto “Running Priest” Reyes
-
Former peace adviser Teresita Quintos-Deles
-
UP professor emerita Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudio
-
Economist and former DOF undersecretary Dr. Maria Cielo Magno
-
Writer and anti-corruption advocate Christopher Cabahug
-
Youth leaders Matthew Christian Silverio and John Lloyd Crisostomo
Who else are named in the case?
Aside from Duterte, 14 OVP and DepEd officials were named, including senior aides, finance and procurement officials, accountants, and security officers from both agencies.
The complainants allege that Duterte implemented an “identical, systematic scheme” in both the OVP and DepEd to bypass laws and safeguards governing confidential funds.
According to the complaints: confidential funds were supposedly spent on national security-related activities, funds were disbursed to individuals listed in acknowledgment receipts, and the named recipients were allegedly non-existent.
Some of the names cited in the documents, the complainants said, resembled popular snack brands such as “Mary Grace Piattos,” “Nova,” and “Oishi.”
What allegedly happened at the OVP?
At the OVP, the complainants claim that:
-
Duterte allegedly directed the scheme through senior aides and finance officers
-
Disbursement vouchers were prepared and encashed without proper documentation
-
Officials allegedly certified and approved these transactions despite missing requirements
-
Entire cash advances were allegedly turned over to unbonded AFP officers designated by Duterte, even though they purportedly had no legal authority to receive government funds
What about DepEd?
The same scheme was allegedly replicated at DepEd:
-
Vouchers were prepared and encashed without supporting documents
-
Some officials allegedly signed off without proper verification
-
Vouchers were reportedly routed for Duterte’s approval
-
Checks were issued, and the cash proceeds allegedly went to unverifiable recipients
One official was accused of receiving and controlling the cash, then disbursing it to recipients who could not be identified or audited.
Why do the complainants say this is serious?
The complainants stressed that the allegations go beyond simple procedural lapses.
They claim that public funds were siphoned to non-existent recipients, the funds were used for purposes already funded under other agencies, and the transactions were structured to evade audit scrutiny, leaving the use of the money “entirely unexplainable.”
Are the cases meant to stop Duterte from running for president in 2028?
Supporters of Vice President Duterte have raised suspicions that the filing of the cases is politically motivated, aimed at weakening or blocking a possible 2028 presidential bid.
Legally speaking, however, the filing of complaints alone does not bar Duterte from running for president.
Under Philippine law:
-
A public official is presumed innocent unless convicted by final judgment
-
Pending cases, including plunder or graft complaints, do not automatically disqualify a candidate from seeking national office
-
Even an ongoing Ombudsman investigation or trial does not prevent a candidate from filing a certificate of candidacy
Disqualification would only come into play if there is a final conviction for a crime carrying the penalty of reclusion perpetua or involving moral turpitude, and even then, only after all appeals are exhausted.
So why do political observers still see high stakes?
While the cases may not legally block a 2028 run, analysts note that:
-
Plunder cases carry heavy political and reputational costs
-
Long-running trials can shape public perception well before an election
-
The Ombudsman process itself may take years, overlapping with the next election cycle
In Philippine politics, the impact of corruption cases is often political rather than procedural, influencing voter sentiment, alliances, and campaign narratives.
What happens next?
The Office of the Ombudsman will first determine whether there is probable cause to proceed with criminal and administrative cases against Duterte and the other respondents.
As of posting, Vice President Duterte has not yet issued a formal response to the allegations.
About The Author
