DAVAO CITY (September 4) — A Quezon City Regional Trial Court on Friday issued a warrant of arrest against Vice President Sara Duterte over three counts of grave threats arising from her controversial remarks about President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The warrant was issued by Branch 98 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, which found probable cause to hold Duterte for trial. The Court also denied her motion seeking to defer or recall the arrest warrant and to quash the criminal case.
The Court set bail at P120,000 for each of the three counts. Duterte’s lawyers have indicated that she intends to post bail and pursue available legal remedies.
Duterte confirmed that she had received the warrant dated September 4, 2026, and that PNP Col. Christine Tabdi had served it at the Office of the Vice President.
“I confirm that I was given notice of a warrant of arrest dated September 4, 2026, issued by Judge Maria Angelica De Ramos of Branch 98, Quezon City, and served by PNP Col. Christine Tabdi in the Office of the Vice President,” Duterte said.
She said her lawyers, Attorneys Paul Lim and Clifford Chua, would attend to the matter immediately.
Malacañang said it respects the Court’s decision.
The case stems from Duterte’s November 2024 online press briefing in which she said she had arranged for an individual to kill Marcos, the First Lady, and Romualdez if she herself were killed. Duterte has maintained that her remarks were taken out of context and denied that they constituted a criminal threat.
The Department of Justice filed the three grave-threat charges in August.
But does the warrant affect her impeachment trial? Not automatically. This is the crucial legal distinction.
The criminal case before the Quezon City RTC and the impeachment proceedings before the Senate are separate proceedings with different purposes and legal consequences.
The arrest warrant means the trial court has found probable cause to proceed with the criminal prosecution. It does not mean Duterte has been found guilty of grave threats.
A spokesperson for the House impeachment prosecution panel, Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, stressed this distinction Friday.
“The issuance of an arrest warrant is not a finding of guilt. Due process must be observed at every stage,” Adiong said.
House prosecutor and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon likewise said the criminal case is separate from the impeachment proceedings and that Duterte will have the opportunity to defend herself in the proper Court.
Two proceedings, potentially the same facts
The unusual aspect of the case is that the same alleged statements are at the center of both proceedings.
The alleged threats against Marcos and his family form part of the allegations raised against Duterte in the impeachment case now before the Senate. The criminal case, meanwhile, asks whether those statements constitute the crime of grave threats under criminal law.
The RTC is deciding whether there is sufficient basis to prosecute Duterte for a crime.
The Senate impeachment court is deciding whether the allegations constitute an impeachable offense warranting removal from office and possible disqualification from holding public office.
The two proceedings may therefore examine some of the same events and evidence without one automatically determining the outcome of the other.
The warrant is not an impeachment conviction.
The Constitution itself recognizes that impeachment and criminal prosecution can coexist.
Article XI, Section 3(7) provides that an impeachment judgment is limited to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines. It further states that the impeached official remains liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment in accordance with the law.
In other words, impeachment does not replace a criminal prosecution.
And a criminal arrest warrant does not replace an impeachment judgment.
This means Duterte can face the criminal case while the Senate separately exercises its constitutional authority over the impeachment proceedings.
What does the finding of probable cause mean?
The Court’s finding of probable cause is significant, but it must not be confused with a finding of guilt.
Probable cause is the legal threshold for allowing the criminal case to proceed. The accused remains presumed innocent and will have the opportunity to challenge the evidence during the criminal proceedings.
The House prosecution panel itself has acknowledged this distinction.
This could become particularly important during the impeachment trial because the prosecution cannot simply argue that “the court issued a warrant, therefore Duterte is guilty.
“The warrant establishes that the criminal Court found sufficient basis to proceed. It does not establish the ultimate truth of the allegations.
Could the warrant strengthen the impeachment case?
Politically and evidentially, potentially yes. Legally, not automatically.
The prosecution could point to the Court’s probable-cause finding as an additional development supporting the seriousness of the allegations. But the Senate impeachment court would still have to examine the evidence presented to it independently.
The defense, meanwhile, could emphasize that probable cause is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the criminal case remains unresolved; Duterte has the right to due process; and the Senate must independently determine whether the alleged conduct constitutes an impeachable offense.
This distinction will likely become one of the more important legal arguments as the impeachment proceedings continue.
What about Duterte’s claim of immunity?
This is another significant aspect of the case.
Duterte had asked the Court to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that she and other impeachable officials enjoy limited procedural immunity while in office under the 1987 Constitution.
The Court rejected the challenge and issued the warrant. The DOJ has maintained that presidential immunity belongs to the President and does not extend to the Vice President.
That ruling does not necessarily end Duterte’s ability to challenge the issue. Her lawyers have said she will continue to exercise available legal remedies.
The Supreme Court’s impeachment ruling is also important
Any analysis of the current impeachment proceedings must take into account the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives.
The Supreme Court declared the previous Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, holding that they violated the Constitution’s one-year rule and due process requirements. The Court emphasized that impeachment is primarily a legal and constitutional process with political characteristics, rather than a purely political proceeding.
In January 2026, the Supreme Court denied the House’s motion for reconsideration, thereby finalizing its ruling on the previous impeachment complaint.
That precedent is relevant because it reinforces the principle that constitutional and due-process questions arising from impeachment can be subject to judicial review.
It does not, however, mean that the Supreme Court will automatically dictate the outcome of the current Senate proceedings.
What happens if the two cases reach different conclusions?
This could become the most interesting legal question.
The Senate could potentially convict Duterte in the impeachment proceedings while the criminal Court later acquits her.
Conversely, the criminal Court could convict her while the Senate does not convict her on the impeachment charges.
The two outcomes would not necessarily be legally inconsistent because the proceedings serve different purposes, follow different procedures, apply different standards, and have different consequences.
An impeachment conviction could lead to removal from office and disqualification from holding public office, while a criminal conviction could result in criminal penalties under the applicable law.
Neither proceeding automatically substitutes for the other. What the arrest warrant changes. The warrant does not automatically suspend the impeachment trial.
But it does create a highly unusual legal and political situation in which a sitting Vice President is simultaneously: facing a criminal prosecution; subject to an arrest warrant and required to deal with the criminal case; and defending herself in an impeachment proceeding before the Senate.
Her ability to participate personally in Senate proceedings could raise practical questions if she is required to attend court proceedings or if her custody status changes. However, the warrant itself does not strip the Senate of its constitutional authority over the impeachment case.
The arrest warrant is a major development in Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal battle, but it is not an impeachment judgment. It means the Quezon City court has found probable cause to hold her for trial on three counts of grave threats. It does not establish her guilt.
At the same time, it does not automatically halt, terminate, or decide the Senate impeachment proceedings.
What makes the situation legally significant is that the alleged threats are being examined in two different forums simultaneously.
The RTC will determine the criminal case.
The Senate impeachment court will determine the impeachment case. The facts may overlap. The legal questions—and ultimately the consequences are different. And that distinction could become critical as both proceedings move forward.-Editha Z Caduaya
