THE Supreme Court has ordered the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, and the House of Representatives to comment within five days on a petition seeking to halt the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.
In a resolution dated Oct. 14, the Supreme Court en banc required the respondents to answer the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Sen. Robinhood Padilla, Sen. Bong Go and several other petitioners.
The court also directed the respondents to comment on the petitioners’ urgent applications for a status quo ante order, a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.
The five-day period is non-extendible.
The petition named the Senate, represented by Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian, and Sen. Francis Escudero, in his capacity as presiding officer of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, as respondents.
It also named the House of Representatives, represented by Speaker Faustino Dy III, and its prosecution panel led by Rep. Gerville Luistro.
Other petitioners include the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban), represented by chairman Alfonso Cusi, and lawyers Israelito Torreon, James Patrick Bondoc, Ferdinand Topacio and Raul Lambino, as well as Philip Salvador and Resci Angelli Rizada-Nolasco.
The petitioners asked the Court to intervene in the impeachment proceedings and issue orders that would restrain the respondents from proceeding with the case.
However, the Supreme Court has not yet granted the petition or issued the requested restraining orders.
Instead, the court resolved to require the respondents to submit their comments without giving due course to the petition.
The resolution was issued by the Supreme Court en banc on Oct. 14 and signed by Clerk of Court Marife Domibao-Cuevas on behalf of the court.
The respondents’ comments will allow the high court to consider their positions before determining how to proceed with the petition.
Duterte’s unexplained wealth
Meanwhile, the House prosecution team spokesman Zia Alonto Adiong said Duterte still has P463 million in alleged unexplained wealth to account for even if financial interests tied to companies linked to her and her husband are excluded.
At a press briefing, the Lanao del Sur first district representative said the prosecution’s case did not depend on treating corporate assets as Duterte’s personal wealth.
“Just to be fair, let us set aside the corporate veil theory. Let us set aside the corporations and their corporate income. There is still P463 million,” Adiong said.
He said the P463,046,459 was part of the P817.87 million in alleged undeclared assets and unexplained wealth identified by forensic accounting expert Alexander Cabrera for 2022 to 2025.
According to Cabrera’s findings presented by the prosecution, the amount included P207.70 million in allegedly undeclared bank balances, P143.50 million in other assets and properties, and P111.85 million in allegedly undeclared income.
Adiong said the remaining P354.83 million involved financial interests attributed to Metro City Chow Foods Corp., GenCorp Industries Inc. and Cale88 Foods Corp., which were excluded from the reduced amount.
To question the figures against Duterte’s declared wealth, Adiong cited records presented during the impeachment trial showing that her net worth increased from P7.25 million in 2007 to P98.66 million in 2025, a rise of P91.41 million.
He also cited Bureau of Internal Revenue records showing that Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, had a combined net income after taxes of P85.34 million from 2007 to 2025.
Adiong further pointed to Duterte’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs), in which she declared zero cash on hand and in banks from 2019 to 2025. He said Cabrera identified bank balances of P60.21 million in 2022, P80.70 million in 2023, P23.17 million in 2024 and P43.61 million in 2025 that were allegedly not declared.
Adiong also raised possible tax evasion, citing Cabrera’s findings of an alleged P111.85-million gap between Duterte’s reported income of P63.11 million and bank inflows of P174.96 million from 2022 to 2025.
“This is not just an issue of nondisclosure or unexplained wealth. This is also an issue of tax evasion,” Adiong said.
He challenged Duterte to explain the source of the funds and whether the proper taxes had been paid.
“Madam Vice President, where did this income that you did not declare in your SALN come from? Where did it come from? How were you able to accumulate this amount of money?” Adiong asked.
Premature
Duterte’s camp on Thursday called discussions about possible replacements for her premature and a distraction from questions over the fairness and legality of her impeachment trial.
“These issues raise grave doubts as to whether a conviction by the Senate impeachment court, and any consequent attempt to install a replacement, would rest on any solid legal and moral foundation,” the camp said in a statement issued by spokesman Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr.
The camp questioned the impartiality of senators sitting as impeachment court members who face or are threatened with plunder and other criminal charges, as well as the constitutionality of lowering the threshold for conviction.
