A GROUP of lawyers allied with Vice President Sara Duterte on Friday petitioned the Supreme Court to stop ongoing impeachment proceedings against her in the House of Representatives.
The group argued that the process undertaken by the House Committee on Justice violates constitutional limits.
In a 186-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, which includes a prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, the petitioners sought to stop the House from proceeding with the third and fourth impeachment complaints. They argued the complaints should have been dismissed outright for insufficiency in form and substance.
The petition was filed by lawyers Israelito Torreon, Vic Rodriguez, Resci Angelli Rizada-Nolasco, Martin Delgra III, Wendel Avisado, James Patrick Bondoc, Raul Lambino, Luna Maria Acosta-Manlitoc, Jesus Hinlo Jr. and Richard Mata.
Named as respondents were the House Committee on Justice, chaired by Rep. Gerville Luistro, and the House of Representatives, represented by Speaker Martin Romualdez.
During a press briefing, Torreon said the legal challenge was not meant to shield the vice president from accountability but to ensure the impeachment process remains within constitutional bounds.
”Impeachment is a grave constitutional process. It is not a political free-for-all,” he said. He added that the case raises fundamental questions about whether the House justice panel may allow preliminary complaints to proceed by relaxing rules and relying on subpoenas to substantiate allegations.
The petitioners argued that the committee gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the third and fourth complaints to move forward despite what they described as clear defects. They said the complaints were “repackaged” and duplicative of earlier filings, noting that one had been publicly described as an “improved version” of a previous complaint.
According to Torreon, the same lawmaker who endorsed an earlier complaint also endorsed a subsequent one, suggesting what he called a “rolling and tactical filing process” that undermines the constitutional threshold required for impeachment.
The lawyers further accused the committee of applying a double standard, pointing out that earlier impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. had been dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence, while those against Duterte were allowed to proceed despite similar deficiencies.
Central to the petition is the claim that the House justice panel overstepped its “gatekeeping” role by conducting subpoena-driven proceedings before determining whether the complaints were sufficient in form and substance. The petitioners said this effectively transformed a preliminary review into a full-blown evidentiary inquiry.
THEY QUESTIONED THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS COVERING DUTERTE’S STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH DATING BACK TO 2007, AS WELL AS DOCUMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND RECORDS INVOLVING CORPORATIONS NOT MENTIONED IN THE COMPLAINTS.
”This shows that the committee is not proving a specific discrepancy; it was broadly searching for one,” Torreon said, describing the proceedings as a “fishing expedition” not sanctioned by the Constitution or House rules.
The petition also argued that due process is compromised when complaints are allowed to survive initial scrutiny and are later bolstered by externally gathered evidence, instead of requiring complainants to establish a clear and direct link between alleged offenses and the respondent at the outset.
The legal move comes as the House Committee on Justice continues to seek financial records and summon witnesses regarding allegations that Duterte misused confidential and intelligence funds, amassed wealth disproportionate to her income and engaged in actions against senior government officials. She has repeatedly denied the accusations.
Earlier, the committee set aside the first impeachment complaint for violating the one-year ban rule, while the second complaint was withdrawn by its complainant.
The filing of the petition adds a new layer of uncertainty to the impeachment process as the House moves closer to deciding whether to elevate the complaints to the plenary. A vote of at least one-third of all House members, or 106 lawmakers, is required to transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.