The political landscape of the Philippines has been shaken once again as Vice President Sara Duterte faces a second plunder complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman this January 2026. Former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, alongside the civil society group “The Silent Majority,” formally lodged the complaint, accusing the Vice President of misusing over ₱600 million in confidential funds during her concurrent tenure as Department of Education (DepEd) Secretary and Vice President.
This latest legal challenge intensifies the scrutiny on the Vice President, who is already battling a previous plunder rap filed in December 2025 and looming impeachment threats in the House of Representatives. With allegations of “ghost” projects, overpriced laptops, and the use of fictitious names in liquidation reports, the complaint paints a picture of systemic financial mismanagement that could have severe legal and political consequences for the country’s second-highest official.
The Allegations: A P600-Million “Parallel Scheme”
The core of the 41-page complaint is the alleged misuse of approximately ₱612.5 million in confidential funds (CFs). The complainants argue that the Vice President orchestrated “parallel and identical schemes” within both the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and DepEd to unlawfully divert public funds.
According to the complaint, these funds were processed with alarming speed and questionable documentation. One of the most cited instances involves the OVP’s expenditure of ₱125 million in confidential funds over a span of just 11 days in December 2022. Critics and state auditors have continuously questioned how such a massive amount could be judiciously spent on surveillance and security in less than two weeks, especially during the holiday season.
The complaint further details that the liquidation of these funds relied on acknowledgment receipts (ARs) that bore “suspicious” similarities. State auditors and congressional hearings revealed that many of the signatories on these receipts had handwriting that appeared identical, raising fears of forgery. Furthermore, some of the names listed as recipients of the funds—such as “Mary Grace Piattos”—have been flagged as likely fictitious, combining a common name with a popular local snack brand.
The DepEd Era: 23 Counts of Anomalies
While the OVP funds have garnered significant media attention, the new complaint places a heavy spotlight on Vice President Duterte’s time as DepEd Secretary. Trillanes and the co-complainants outlined 23 specific counts of alleged irregularities that occurred under her watch, suggesting a pattern of negligence and corruption that arguably detrimental to the Philippine education system.
1. The P8-Billion Laptop Deal One of the most damaging allegations involves the procurement of laptops for public school teachers. The complaint highlights an ₱8-billion project where laptops were allegedly purchased at significantly overpriced rates despite having outdated specifications. This “overpricing” scandal has been a recurring issue in DepEd, but the complaint ties the responsibility directly to the leadership’s failure to exercise due diligence, depriving thousands of teachers of necessary technological tools.
2. “Ghost” Classrooms The Philippines faces a chronic shortage of classrooms, yet the complaint alleges that funds allocated for school building construction were grossly underutilized or mismanaged. Data cited in the filing claims that out of a target of over 6,000 classrooms, only 192 were actually completed during the Vice President’s tenure. The massive gap between the funded target and the actual output raises serious questions about where the construction budget went.
3. Youth Leadership Summits The complaint also questions the use of DepEd funds for “Youth Leadership Summits” (YLS). While ostensibly educational, critics argue these events were used for political maneuvering or were redundant with other government programs. The complainants allege that millions were funneled into these summits with little tangible benefit to the students’ academic performance, serving instead as a vehicle for the Vice President’s political machinery.
The “Drug Money” Connection
In a shocking expansion of the allegations, the second plunder complaint includes a “supplemental” charge linking the Vice President to illegal drug money. Citing affidavits from former military agent and alleged “bagman” Ramil Madriaga, the complaint accuses Duterte of receiving funds from personalities linked to the illegal drug trade during her time as Davao City Mayor.
This allegation strikes at the heart of the Duterte family’s political brand, which was built on a hardline anti-drug stance. If proven, the acceptance of drug money would not only constitute plunder but would also represent a profound betrayal of public trust and the platform upon which she and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, were elected.
Legal Consequences: Plunder is Non-Bailable
The filing of a plunder case is a serious legal maneuver. Under Philippine law (Republic Act No. 7080), plunder is defined as the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least ₱50 million by a public officer. It is a non-bailable offense punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
Since the alleged amount (₱600 million) is twelve times the threshold for plunder, the stakes are incredibly high. If the Ombudsman finds probable cause and files the case before the Sandiganbayan, the Vice President could face an arrest warrant. While her position affords her some level of protection, she is not immune from suit for crimes committed, although the execution of an arrest might face constitutional and logistical hurdles while she remains in office.
The Political Fallout: Impeachment Looms
This second plunder rap serves as potent ammunition for the Vice President’s critics in the House of Representatives. Impeachment complaints have already been filed, citing “betrayal of public trust” and “culpable violation of the Constitution.” The evidence presented in this plunder case—particularly the Commission on Audit (COA) findings regarding the 11-day spending spree and the fictitious receipts—will likely form the backbone of the impeachment articles.
The political alliance that swept the 2022 elections, known as the “UniTeam,” effectively collapsed in 2024. The rift between the Marcos and Duterte camps has turned into open political warfare. This legal offensive is viewed by the Duterte camp as a coordinated effort to dismantle their political power base ahead of the 2028 presidential elections.
Vice President Duterte has steadfastly denied all allegations. She has categorized the hearings and complaints as “political harassment” and a “trial by publicity” orchestrated by those who wish to see her removed from power. In previous statements, she refused to defend the confidential funds budget in Congress, stating she would leave it to the discretion of the lawmakers, a move that was widely criticized as an avoidance of accountability.
Public Sentiment and The “Silent Majority”
The involvement of “The Silent Majority” as complainants indicates a resurgence of civil society activism targeting corruption. Public sentiment remains deeply polarized. Supporters of the Vice President view the cases as a witch hunt, maintaining her high approval ratings in certain regions, particularly Mindanao. However, national surveys have shown a dip in her trust ratings as the scandals regarding confidential funds have persisted in the news cycle.
The accusation of stealing funds meant for education—specifically for classrooms and teachers’ laptops—resonates negatively with the broader public, given the dire state of Philippine public schools. The image of the “Mary Grace Piattos” receipt has become a symbol of the alleged absurdity and brazenness of the corruption, fueling outrage on social media.
What Happens Next?
The Office of the Ombudsman, led by Ombudsman Samuel Martires, is now tasked with conducting a preliminary investigation. They must determine if there is sufficient evidence to charge the Vice President in court. Simultaneously, the House of Representatives may accelerate impeachment proceedings.
If impeached by the House, the Vice President would face trial in the Senate. A conviction would remove her from office. If the Ombudsman files the criminal case, she would face a legal battle that could drag on for years, potentially ending in imprisonment.
For now, Vice President Sara Duterte stands at the most precarious point of her political career. The “DepEd Era,” once seen as a platform for her administrative capability, has become the primary source of legal liability that threatens to end her vice presidency prematurely.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: What is the specific amount involved in the second plunder complaint? A: The complaint alleges the misuse of over ₱600 million (specifically around ₱612.5 million) in confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).
Q: Who filed the second plunder complaint against VP Sara Duterte? A: The complaint was filed by former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and members of the civil society group “The Silent Majority.”
Q: What is the “Mary Grace Piattos” issue mentioned in the article? A: It refers to a name found on an acknowledgment receipt used to liquidate confidential funds. Critics and complainants allege it is a fictitious name, likely fabricated using a combination of a common name and a popular snack brand, indicating falsification of documents.
Q: Can the Vice President be jailed if found guilty of plunder? A: Yes. Plunder is a non-bailable offense punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
Q: How does this affect her position as Vice President? A: While the filing of the complaint itself does not remove her from office, it can be used as grounds for impeachment. If impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, she would be removed from the Vice Presidency.
Q: What are the “23 counts” mentioned in the complaint? A: These are specific instances of alleged anomalies during her term as DepEd Secretary and Davao City Mayor, including the purchase of overpriced laptops, failure to build targeted classrooms, and unexplained wealth.
Q: How has Vice President Sara Duterte responded to these allegations? A: She has consistently denied the allegations, labeling them as politically motivated attacks and “political harassment” intended to derail her future political plans.