House seeks dismissal of petitions against Sara Duterte impeachment proceedings

The House of Representatives, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the consolidated petitions seeking to stop the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In an 85-page comment-opposition, the OSG argued that the petitions were procedurally defective and lacked merit. It asked the SC to deny all prayers for injunctive relief.

“As the House persists in exercising its constitutional duty, so must this Honorable Court, with all due respect, restrain itself from being used to impede the same,” it said.

“In the absence of grave abuse of discretion, this Honorable Court must let the impeachment run its natural course. The politics that give impeachment life, should also be what sees is through the end, whatever the outcome,” it added.

A total of four petitions have been filed with the SC in connection with the proceedings, including the petition filed by the Vice President herself.

The first two were consolidated by the High Court, while the remaining petitions were filed after the consolidation.

According to the OSG, the first group of petitioners — composed of  petitioners Israelito Torreon, Resci Rizada Nolasco, and Jimmy Bondoc — lack legal standing, whether as taxpayers, citizens, or any other label.

The OSG also maintained that the Justice panel did not employ different standard in assessing the impeachment complaints filed against Duterte and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

“These are not justiciable issues, and they do not involve judicially reviewable standards. Thus, this argument cannot be entertained by this Honorable Court,” it said.

Assuming that the matters are cognizable, the OSG said that the complaints against Marcos arise from an entirely different set of facts and allegations, independente and irrelevant from the complaints filed against Duterte.

“Petitioners’ claim of ‘double standards’ is bereft of factual and legal bases,” it said.

The OSG added that the House Justice Committee did not violate due process during the impeachment proceedings against Duterte. 

It also said that the petitions are non-justiciable for being premature, and are not ripe for judicial determination as the impeachment proceedings are still ongoing.

“Even after the Committee concludes its proceedings, there is as yet no adverse effect against petitioner Duterte, as the Committee’s functions is limited to the preparation and submission of a report to the plenary,” it said.

Further, it said that the four impeachment complaints were validly referred to the Justice Committee and that the first two complaints do not transgress the one-year bar rule.

Meanwhile, the OSG said that the Senate, as the Impeachment Court, has the primary jurisdiction to determine the ultimate merit on the charges.

Aside from this, the OSG argued that the petitioners are not entitled to a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a writ of preliminary injunction, saying that no rights have been violated and the petitioners are not at risk of suffering any grave and irreparable injury.

Supplemental petition

Meanwhile, the first group of petitioners said they filed a supplemental petition that contains additional arguments to support their earlier pleading.

According to the Law Firm of Torreon and Partners, Torreon and the others asked the High Court to declare House Resolution No. 892 unconstitutional for authorizing the House Justice committee to continue the proceedings during the House recess from March

They also asked the SC to declare null and void all hearings, orders, resolutions, subpoenas, compulsory processes, petitions acted upon, resolved motions, and evindentiary proceedings performed by the panel pursuant to the resolution during the recess period.

They also also asked the court to enjoin permanently the respondents from implementing the resolution.

“Petitioners do not ask this Court to declare that the allegations against her may never be heard, examined, or acted upon,” the petition read.

“What petitioners ask, and ask firmly, is only this: that accountability must be pursued within the Constitution, not outside of it, through constitutional discipline, not through procedural improvisation, and in fidelity to this Court’s binding ruling in Duterte v. House of Representatives, not in circumvention of it,” it added.

In their petition, they argued that the Supreme Court previously said that, for purposes of impeachment, a session day means a calendar day on which the House of Representatives holds a plenary session.

The petitioners said that the rule cannot be bypassed by a regular resolution.

Due to this, they argued that the resolution violated the plain and ordinary meaning of the Constitution. — RSJ, GMA News