VP Duterte asks SC to stop House impeachment hearing

Vice President Sara Duterte has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the House of Representatives and the House justice panel to stop them from proceeding with the impeachment hearings against her.

Duterte made the appeal in a 58-page petition for certiorari dated March 30 filed before the High Court.

“There is a reason why impeachment is the road less travelled – it is often the wrong road. No less than the Constitution reserves this sui generis process to the vilest and most treasonous of grounds committed by an exclusive list of impeachable government officials,” the petition said.

“As meticulously and unmistakably demonstrated in this petition, the impeachment proceedings against the petitioner are unconstitutional and continuing with them will result in a miscarriage of justice and a mockery of processes that our Constitution and laws have always aimed to protect,” it added.

The Vice President’s petition named the following as respondents: the House of Representatives as represented by Speaker Faustino Dy III, the House justice committee as represented by Rep. Gerville Reyes-Luistro, the Senate as represented by Senate President Vicente Sotto III, and the 14 individuals who filed the two impeachment complaints against her.

Duterte, through her lawyers, also sought a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the proceedings on grounds of unconstitutionality.

This includes “any trial, mini-trial, or so-called preliminary investigation, issuance and enforcement of compulsory processes, and such other acts or incidents.”

The Vice President also asked the High Court to declare Section 7 and 8 of the 19th Congress’ Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings and the guidelines of the House justice panel as void and unconstitutional.

Duterte also sought a final injunction nullifying and setting aside the impeachment proceedings related to the Saballa and Cabrera complaints for being unconstitutional, and enjoining the House and the Senate from “doing any and all acts relative and pursuant thereto.”

Mini-trial

In her petition for certiorari, the Vice President argued that the House justice panel’s proceedings are unconstitutional and that it has no power to conduct trial.

“It is evident that the proceedings before the respondent committee are, in truth and substance, a trial in disguise. Its members’ use of various nomenclatures such as ‘mini-trial,’ ‘hearing proper’ or a ‘process akin to a preliminary investigation’ does not change its true nature,” the petition said.

Duterte stressed that allowing the House justice committee to undertake a trial and embark on a fishing expedition is to “allow them to circumvent the limits of their function and usurp the prerogatives of the impeachment court solely vested in the Senate acting as such.”

She added that by conducting a “mini-trial,” the panel concedes that its prior finding of alleged sufficiency of the Saballa and Cabrera complaints was erroneous or it is now engaged in a fishing expedition to shore up the “sorely inadequate” impeachment complaints.

The Vice President added that the panel has no power to improvise new or additional rules in impeachment proceedings without the imprimatur of the House acting in plenary and prior publication.

She also claimed that there was no due process and fair play, noting that procedural due process requires more than a mere notice but a “genuine and meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

No ‘ultimate facts’

In addition, Duterte reiterated her argument that there is “no ultimate facts” alleged in the impeachment complaints, and that this does not cover “legal conclusions or evidentiary facts.”

The impeachment complaints cited Duterte’s supposed misuse of confidential funds, the non-declaration of her assets, alleged abuse of power, and her alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

The petition maintained that the accusations against the Vice President fell short of the gravity required to amount to a betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption or bribery, culpable violation of the Constitution, or high crimes.

“In truth, the accusations themselves are built not on established facts, but on mere conclusions, assumptions, speculations, and a fundamentally flawed interpretation of the law,” it said.

It added that to date, there is no final decision that declared the questioned disbursements illegal, unjustifiable, exorbitant, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable.

Duterte also maintained that the one-year bar rule on initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official was violated and that there was no valid referral of the complaints to the House justice committee since there was no deliberation conducted by the House plenary.

Misleading

However, House public accounts committee chair and Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon alleged that Duterte is “misleading” the Supreme Court and the public through her petition seeking to stop the impeachment proceedings.

Ridon, a member of the House justice panel, claimed that the petition “is anchored on a misrepresentation of facts and a distorted interpretation of the Constitution and prevailing jurisprudence.”

“It is a clear attempt to mislead the Supreme Court and the public,” the lawmaker said in a statement, as he disputed claims that the impeachment complaints were not properly referred by the House in plenary.

“The official video footage of the February 23, 2026 plenary session, at 3:48 p.m., clearly shows that the referral of the four impeachment complaints was carried out by the House of Representatives in plenary, in accordance with Section 3(2), Article XI of the Constitution,” Ridon said.

“This was not merely an act of the Speaker or the Committee on Rules. It was an act of the House sitting as a collective body,” he said.

He also rejected assertions that prior deliberation was required before referral, saying no such mandate exists under the Constitution, House rules or jurisprudence.

“There is no provision in the 1987 Constitution, the House Rules on Impeachment, or Gutierrez v. House of Representatives that mandates deliberation prior to referral,” Ridon said.

He recalled that during the plenary session, no lawmaker raised objections or sought deliberation on the referral.

“More importantly, during that plenary session, no member of the House moved to object to the referral or to initiate deliberation – not even allies, relatives, or close associates of the Vice President,” Ridon said.

He also dismissed claims that there was a violation of the one-year bar rule and that only one valid referral was made.

“The One-Year Bar applies only after a valid referral of an impeachment complaint. Public records clearly show that only one referral of the impeachment complaints to the House committee on justice took place, notwithstanding the setting aside of the Castro complaint and the withdrawal of the Dee complaint,” Ridon said.

He maintained that jurisprudence supports the process undertaken by the House committee.

“Even Duterte v. House recognizes that it is the process within the committee on justice that determines which complaints proceed and which are dismissed,” Ridon said.

Grounded in law

On due process, Ridon said the committee’s actions remain firmly grounded in law.

“The authority of the House committee on justice to conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, and gather evidence is firmly grounded in the Constitution, the House Rules on Impeachment, and established jurisprudence, including Duterte v. House,” he said.

“The Constitution does not require that all evidence be attached at the time of filing. The hearing process itself exists precisely to uncover the truth,” Ridon added.

Ridon said the House will continue its constitutional mandate to “hold the Vice President accountable for issues involving confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and threats against the President.”

“In the coming days, documents from the Ombudsman, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be submitted. These will be presented to the public next week, on April 14. Witness testimony, including that of Ramil Madriaga, will also be heard,” Ridon said.

“We are now in the middle of a constitutional process of accountability. We will continue the proceedings until the very end. Enough of the deception. Enough of the falsehoods. It is time to face the truth,” he added. — JMA, GMA News