DAVAO CITY (MindaNews / 8 April) — Vice President Sara Duterte filed a petition with the Supreme Court to stop the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives from proceeding with the “hearing proper” on the impeachment complaints against her.
This is the second petition filed before the SC, following a similar case lodged by a group of lawyer-supporters from Davao City, led by co-petitioner Atty. Israelito Torreon, on March 27. Both challenge the constitutionality of the ongoing proceedings, which mark the final step before the possible filing of Articles of Impeachment in the Senate.
Duterte, in her petition for certiorari and prohibition filed on April 1, argued that the initiation of the impeachment process was marred by “grave abuse of discretion” and violated the one-year bar rule under the 1987 Constitution.
According to her, the one-year ban was triggered by the “effective non-viability” of the first two complaints upon setting them aside and withdrawal.
The Committee had earlier ruled sufficient in form, substance, and grounds the third and fourth impeachment complaints, referring to the complaints filed by Reverend Father Joel Saballa, et. al., and Atty. Nathaniel G. Cabrera on Feb. 9 and Feb. 18, respectively.
The Committee began the hearing proper on March 25 and will resume on April 14, 22, and 29, 2026, to determine whether there is probable cause to recommend the filing of Articles of Impeachment.
In a statement on Wednesday, Duterte’s legal team said that the filing of the petition “was taken to seek clarity on fundamental constitutional questions, which, in our view, warrant the Court’s immediate attention.”
“To be clear, this is not about avoiding the process. This is about ensuring that the process itself complies with the Constitution. The House has the power to initiate the impeachment, but that power is not without limits.
Duterte said in her petition that the conduct of the “hearing proper,” which she described as a “trial — whether mini or full-blown —” by the Committee, along with its issuances of subpoenas, is unconstitutional, encroaching on the Senate’s authority as the impeachment court.
The Vice President also noted some procedural lapses in the initiation of the fresh impeachment complaints. According to her, the Lower House completely dispensed with the deliberations and voting in a public plenary session before allegedly referring the four impeachment complaints to the Committee.
Duterte added that the issuance of subpoenas was aimed at “obtaining and/or gathering evidence against the petitioner (Duterte) beyond the four corners of the impeachment complaints before it, thereby exceeding the bounds of its limited role in the entire impeachment process.”
The official also asked the Court whether the proceedings being conducted by the Lower House are “still within the contemplation of a hearing sanctioned under Section 3(2), Article XI of the Constitution or a trial, the exercise of which is exclusively vested in the Senate under Section 3(6), Article XI, thereby rendering the proceedings unconstitutional.”
She also asked SC whether the “Committee on Justice and its members committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they subjected the petitioner to a different set of standards in the treatment of the impeachment complaints against her as opposed to the set of standards they employed with respect to the comparable prior impeachment complaints,” referring to the similar impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. which the Committee had earlier dismissed.
Among the grounds cited in the complaints were gross abuse of discretionary powers in relation to the use of confidential funds, gross disregard of the principle of transparency and accountability, disregard of congressional oversight as Duterte allegedly evaded important questions about her office’s expenditures, culpable violations of the Constitution, graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes.
According to the complainants, Duterte has failed to explain to the Filipino people how she was able to spend ₱112.5 million in 11 days while she was at the helm of the Department of Education. She was also accused of misuse of ₱500 million in confidential funds for the Office of the Vice President.
Under Article XI, Section 3(3) of the Constitution, a vote of at least one-third of all the members of the House will be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee on Justice, or override its contrary resolution.
Once the Articles of Impeachment are filed, the Senate will later convene as an impeachment court. (Antonio L. Colina IV / MindaNews)
0 Comments