Voting results showed 255 of 317 lawmakers backed the impeachment complaint, comfortably surpassing the one-third threshold required under the Philippine constitution to elevate the case to the Senate.

Duterte faces allegations including misuse of public funds, accumulation of unexplained wealth and threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the first lady and a former House speaker. She has denied wrongdoing, while her legal team has described the complaint as defective and politically motivated.

If convicted in a Senate trial, Duterte would be removed from office and permanently barred from holding elected office, a penalty that could derail any attempt to seek the presidency in 2028.

The impeachment vote came minutes after the Senate elected longtime Duterte ally Alan Peter Cayetano as Senate president, replacing Vicente Sotto III in a 13-9 vote with two abstentions.Cayetano, who served as foreign secretary under former president Rodrigo Duterte, denied the leadership change was linked to the impeachment proceedings.

“I do not blame you if you’re saying that the change in leadership was due to the impeachment, it was not,” Cayetano told senators after the vote.Under Philippine law, the Senate acts as an impeachment court once charges are transmitted from the House.

A guilty verdict requires support from two-thirds of senators.The latest impeachment effort follows a failed attempt in June 2025, when the Senate convened an impeachment court in televised proceedings before returning the case to the House, a move critics described as a de facto dismissal.Political dynamics in the upper chamber have shifted since then.

Candidates aligned with Duterte performed strongly in the May 2025 midterm elections, winning five of 12 contested Senate seats and improving her chances of surviving a trial.Among senators present during Monday’s proceedings was Ronald dela Rosa, the former national police chief who played a central role in Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-drug campaign.

Dela Rosa had largely stayed out of public view since November last year.Dela Rosa and Senator Christopher Go are among current and former officials named by prosecutors at the International Criminal Court as alleged co-perpetrators in the crimes against humanity case linked to Duterte’s anti-drug crackdown.

Dennis Coronacion, chair of the political science department at University of Santo Tomas, said before the vote that Duterte’s acquittal remained a realistic possibility because of support from newly elected senators.“There are new senators who have been very vocal that they are supporting the vice president,” he told AFP.

Kim, the wife of jailed former president Yoon Suk Yeol, had initially been sentenced in January to 20 months in prison for bribery but was cleared of allegations that she helped manipulate stock prices and of several other charges.Both Kim and prosecutors appealed the ruling, with Kim seeking to clear her name and prosecutors arguing that the sentence was too lenient and that the acquittals were unjustified.

The Seoul High Court ruled on Tuesday that Kim had participated in manipulating the share price of Deutsch Motors, a South Korean car dealer, describing the activity as a “collusive trading act constituting market manipulation.”“The defendant appears to have participated in such conduct,” the court said in its televised judgment.

The court sentenced Kim to four years in prison and imposed a fine of 50 million won ($34,000), significantly increasing the punishment from the original trial.It also upheld her bribery conviction, ruling that her conduct had undermined confidence in government integrity.

“As a result of her accepting bribes, public trust in the transparency of state affairs and the fair execution of national policy was undermined,” the court said.Judges added that Kim had failed to accept responsibility and had instead “consistently resorted to excuses,” though they noted her lack of any prior criminal record in determining the sentence.

Kim, 53, appeared in court wearing a white face mask and kept her head lowered as the verdict was delivered.Her legal team told AFP they would appeal the decision to South Korea’s Supreme Court.Kim remained one of the most controversial public figures during Yoon’s presidency, with repeated scandals often overshadowing his administration.

In 2023, secretly recorded footage appeared to show her accepting a luxury Dior handbag, intensifying political backlash and contributing to falling approval ratings for Yoon’s government.The controversy was widely seen as a factor in the ruling party’s defeat in the April 2024 parliamentary elections, where it failed to regain a legislative majority.

Yoon later vetoed three opposition-backed bills seeking investigations into allegations surrounding Kim, including the Dior handbag case, with his final veto issued in November 2024.One week later, he declared martial law, a move that failed and triggered his impeachment, removal from office and eventual sentencing in February this year to life imprisonment for insurrection.

Yoon has appealed that conviction, saying his martial law declaration was made “solely for the sake of the nation.”Another appeal verdict related to his separate five-year sentence for obstruction of justice and other crimes connected to the declaration is expected on Wednesday.

Kim’s bribery case also implicated Han Hak-ja, leader of the Unification Church, who is accused of providing luxury gifts including two Chanel handbags and a Graff necklace.The court ruled Tuesday that all three items constituted bribes.

In the lower court’s January ruling, one of the handbags had not been classified as a bribe because it was allegedly gifted before Yoon’s presidential inauguration.

Han, 83, is standing trial on bribery and other charges and is currently receiving medical treatment after being temporarily released from custody.

Prosecutors said in a statement that the new sentence was being pursued on charges of aiding the enemy, arguing that Yoon’s alleged actions were intended to “fabricate wartime conditions” and undermined national security.

The request comes after Yoon was sentenced to life imprisonment in February for leading what authorities described as an insurrection aimed at paralysing South Korea’s National Assembly.According to prosecutors, the drone operation heightened tensions with North Korea and led to the exposure of classified military information after the drones crashed, including details related to force capabilities.

The allegations were also reported by Yonhap news agency.Yoon has appealed his earlier conviction, maintaining that his decision to declare martial law was taken “solely for the sake of the nation.”The case adds to ongoing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, where the two Koreas remain technically at war.

Drone activity has been a recurring source of friction between the sides.Earlier this month, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung expressed regret to Pyongyang following an investigation that found government officials had sent drones into North Korea in January.

In response, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un described the statement as “wise behavior,” though prospects for improved relations diminished after North Korea resumed describing the South as its “most hostile” adversary.

Lee has pledged to repair inter-Korean relations by halting provocations associated with his predecessor and has indicated that a formal apology over the drone incidents may be considered.

Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Iran have prompted renewed discussion among some Democratic lawmakers about the potential use of the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting president from office.

The debate, however, reflects more of a political signal than a viable constitutional pathway, given the significant institutional and partisan barriers involved.The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, was designed to clarify presidential succession and ensure continuity of executive authority.

It addressed longstanding gaps in the Constitution, particularly the absence of a clear mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. Historical data from the Congressional Research Service indicates that between 1789 and 1967, the vice presidency remained vacant for a cumulative total exceeding 37 years due to deaths, resignations, or succession.

The amendment comprises multiple sections, but current political discussion has centered on Section 4, which outlines a process for involuntarily transferring presidential powers if the president is deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office. Under this provision, the vice president, together with a majority of the cabinet or another congressionally designated body, can declare the president unfit.

If the president contests the determination, Congress must convene within 48 hours, and a two-thirds majority in both chambers is required to uphold the decision.While Section 3 of the amendment has been used in limited circumstances, primarily involving temporary medical incapacitation, Section 4 has never been invoked.

In 2021, then-President Joe Biden temporarily transferred authority during a medical procedure, illustrating the amendment’s routine procedural application rather than its more controversial provisions.

Calls to consider Section 4 have surfaced previously, most notably after the January 6 United States Capitol attack, when some Democratic leaders urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to initiate the process. Among those advocating such action were Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Those efforts did not advance, reflecting both political constraints and the high constitutional threshold required.The current discussion emerges in a similarly constrained environment. Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, making bipartisan cooperation essential for any attempt to proceed.

Analysts note that without substantial defections from within the president’s party, the two-thirds congressional requirement effectively renders the mechanism unattainable under present conditions.

Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, characterized the prospect as politically unworkable, citing the improbability of sufficient Republican support.

Public opinion data further underscores this dynamic, with approximately 82 percent of Republican voters expressing approval of Trump’s presidency, reinforcing party cohesion at a critical juncture.The political risks for Democrats are also significant.

Previous efforts to remove Trump through impeachment during his first term failed to secure conviction in the Senate, despite passage in the House. Those experiences continue to inform strategic calculations within the party, particularly as lawmakers prepare for upcoming midterm elections in which control of Congress remains contested.

Some Democratic legislators have indicated a preference to prioritize policy initiatives over procedural challenges to the presidency. Representative Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania stated that pursuing impeachment or similar measures at this stage may not represent the most effective use of legislative time, emphasizing instead issues such as economic policy, inflation, and childcare access.

Republican leaders have responded critically to the renewed focus on the amendment. House Speaker Mike Johnson described the discussion as politically motivated, arguing that it reflects a lack of substantive policy direction among Democratic lawmakers.

The exchange highlights the broader partisan divide that shapes both the feasibility and the framing of constitutional mechanisms in contemporary U.S. politics.

The renewed attention to the 25th Amendment illustrates its enduring relevance as a constitutional safeguard, while also underscoring the practical limitations of its most consequential provisions.

Although designed to address extraordinary circumstances, its application remains contingent on political consensus at the highest levels of government, a condition that appears absent in the current landscape.

The proposed “Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office” would create a 17-member body empowered to assess whether a president is fit to remain in office under criteria including physical or mental incapacity, or impairment due to substance use.

The initiative revives legislation first introduced by Raskin in 2020 during Trump’s first term.The move comes as some Democrats in Congress have renewed discussions about possible impeachment proceedings or invoking the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides a mechanism to transfer presidential powers if a leader is deemed unable to perform official duties.

Raskin’s proposal is unlikely to advance in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson has been a strong supporter of Trump. Republican lawmakers in both chambers have also blocked separate Democratic efforts to pass a resolution aimed at ending recent U.S. military actions in Iran that were not formally authorized by Congress.

Political tensions have escalated following Trump’s recent warning that “a whole civilization will die” unless Iran permits free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a key global shipping route. The statement came after U.S. forces, alongside Israel, launched military operations against Iran beginning February 28, raising concerns among lawmakers about the scope and objectives of the intervention.

Trump, who is serving his second term, was impeached twice during his first presidency but was acquitted on both occasions by the Senate.

While many Democrats had previously avoided renewed impeachment efforts, recent developments have prompted some within the party to revisit options for challenging Trump’s continuation in office, though views remain divided within the caucus.