Lawyers seek TRO vs. Sara Duterte’s impeachment proceedings

Several lawyers on Friday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the House of Representatives from proceeding with the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte. 

In a 186-page petition, the petitioners asked the SC to declare that the House Justice Committee gravely abused its discretion by sustaining the third and fourth impeachment complaints against Duterte, arguing they lacked sufficiency in form and substance.

They also asked the SC to declare that the third and fourth impeachment complaints should have been dismissed at the threshold for insufficiency in form and/ or substance.

“[T]his petition is not about placing Vice President Sara Duterte on accountability. It is about ensuring that accountability remains constitutional. Impeachment is a grave constitutional process. It is not a political free-for-all process,” petitioner and lawyer Israelito Torreon said in a press conference.

The petitioners are lawyers Torreon, Vic Rodriguez, Rescie Angelli Rizada-Nolasco, Martin Delgra III, Wendel Avisado, James Patrick Bondoc, Raul Lambino, Luna Maria Acosta-Manlitoc, Jesus Hinlo Jr., and Dr. Richard Mata.

Meanwhile, named respondents are the House Justice Committee, represented by its chairperson Gerville Luistro, and the House of Representatives, represented by House Speaker Faustino Dy III.

Mandate

Luistro, in response, said the petition cannot get in the way of the House’s constitutional and sole mandate to initiate impeachment proceedings.

“We have not yet received nor reviewed the actual petition, but as with any legal pleading, we will study it carefully once it is formally served, and we will respond. [But] the filing of a petition, by itself, does not suspend the constitutional functions of a co-equal branch,” Luistro said in a statement.

“Accordingly, unless and until directed otherwise by the Supreme Court, the House will continue to perform its mandate,” Luistro added.

Further, Luistro said that the impeachment proceedings conducted by the House committee on justice are strongly anchored on the Constitution.

“The Constitution is equally clear in vesting upon the House of Representatives the sole power to initiate impeachment cases. This is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and one we are duty-bound to carry out faithfully,” Luistro said.

“The ongoing proceedings in the House Committee on Justice are part of this constitutional process. They are designed to determine whether probable cause exists—not to determine guilt, and not to conduct a trial. That function belongs to the Senate,” she added.

'Improved version'

According to Torreon, the House allowed the third and fourth impeachment complaints to survive “despite defects in form and substance.”

“The same representative who endorsed the second impeachment complaint was the same representative who endorsed the third impeachment complaint,” he said.

“Moreover, the same accusations were serially repackaged, and the third complaint was publicly described as an ‘improved version’ of an earlier complaint,” he added.

Torreon said this showed that endorsement functioned as a “rolling and tactical filing process.”

Torreon said the House Committee applied double standards in comparison to the impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

“When it came to Vice President Sara Duterte, the Committee suddenly became permissive. Complaints that were conclusion-driven, duplicative, hearsay-laden, and openly investigative in character were allowed to proceed,” Torreon said.

Meanwhile, the petitioners asked the SC to declare the House Justice Committee’s issuance of subpoenas void for alleged overbreadth.

Torreon said that the Justice panel approved numerous subpoenas for Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALN), NBI materials, affidavits, and others.

“This is why we say, without exaggeration, that the March 25 proceedings became a fishing expedition. Threshold review is not a license for a fishing expedition,” he said. 

Torreon stressed that the subpoenas for Duterte’s SALNs covered 2007 onwards and also covered corporations not stated in the complaint.

“This shows that the committee is not proving a specific discrepancy; it was… broadly searching for one,” Torreon said.

“The committee here is not actually investigating. It is conducting a clear fishing expedition, which is not sanctioned under the 1987 Constitution or in the rules of the House of Representatives,” he added.

The House panel set aside the first impeachment complaint against Duterte for violating the one year-ban rule. Meanwhile, the second complaint was withdrawn by the complainant. —LDF, GMA Integrated News