Sara asks SC: Stop impeach hearings

MANILA, Philippines —  After repeatedly warning of a “bloodbath” if forced to defend herself in an impeachment trial, Vice President Sara Duterte has again turned to the Supreme Court (SC) for help, this time to stop the justice committee of the House of Representatives from hearing the impeachment complaints against her.

In a 58-page petition, Duterte – through her lawyers – sought the SC’s issuance of a temporary restraining order to stop the justice committee’s hearing on her case.

She is also seeking a preliminary injunction against related proceedings “including any trial, mini-trial or so-called preliminary investigation, issuance and enforcement of compulsory processes and such other acts or incidents.”

The Vice President yesterday also petitioned the high court to “issue a final injunction” to junk the two impeachment complaints, and enjoin “the respondents House of Representatives, Committee on Justice and the Senate of the Philippines, from doing any and all acts” related to her impeachment.

She argued the two impeachment complaints – the third and fourth filed by the group of Fr. Jose Saballa and lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera and endorsed by Reps. Leila de Lima, Bienvenido Abante Jr. and Paolo Ortega V respectively – violated the one-year prohibition for filing of impeachment complaints.

Later in the day, the SC ordered the justice committee to comment on the petitions of Duterte and of the group of lawyer Israelito Torreon “within a non-extendable period of 10 days from receipt of notice.” The order was made “without necessarily giving due course to the petitions,” it noted.

The high tribunal also “consolidated” the two petitions, with SC spokesperson Camille Ting emphasizing no TRO was issued.

Michael Poa, spokesman for Duterte’s 16-man legal team, said that in filing her petition, the Vice President wanted 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 impeachment, but that power is not without limits,” he said.

“Out of respect for the court, we will refrain from discussing the details publicly and will await its action,” Poa added.

Last January, the SC ruled in favor of Duterte’s petition contesting the first impeachment complaints, for violation of the one-year bar rule.

Duterte also accused the House justice committee of committing “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction” and of “(encroaching) on the power of the Senate vested by the Constitution” by conducting what committee chairperson Rep. Gerville Luistro called a  “mini-trial.”

The next House justice committee’s hearing on the impeachment complaint against Duterte is on April 14. The last two hearings are set for April 22 and 29.

In the absence of a TRO from the SC, the justice committee can proceed with its scheduled hearing on the impeachment complaints, according to Speaker Faustino Dy III.

“We have the highest respect for the Court and its processes, and we defer to its authority on matters properly brought before it,” Dy said in a statement.

“This reflects the proper balance among institutions, with each branch performing its role within the bounds of the Constitution,” he said.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua, a member of the committee and chairman of the committee on good government and public accountability, said “there is no legal impediment to the ongoing impeachment proceedings. The House committee on justice will continue its work as mandated by the Constitution.”

“We respect the Supreme Court and its processes. At the same time, the House is duty-bound to proceed unless restrained by the court. This reflects institutional balance – not conflict,” he said.

“The filing of a petition does not automatically stop proceedings. The absence of a TRO underscores that accountability mechanisms remain in motion,” Chua said.

Misleading the SC

Rep. Terry Ridon, a member of the justice committee, accused Duterte of  “misleading” the SC in her latest petition.

“It (Duterte’s SC 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 SC and the public,” Ridon, chairman of the House committee on public accounts, argued.

Contrary to Duterte’s claims, Ridon said the referral of the impeachment complaints was “properly” done by the House in plenary.

“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, even citing the existence of official video footage of the proceedings.

Ridon likewise dismissed allegations of a violation of the one-year bar rule, stressing that only one valid referral was made. “The one-year bar applies only after a valid referral of an impeachment complaint,” he stressed.

“Accordingly, there is no violation of the one-year bar. The contrary claim in the petition is a misapplication of both the Constitution and jurisprudence,” Ridon said. On due process, he said the committee’s actions were in accordance with the Constitution.

“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 vs House,” he said.

“The 1987 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 said.

Mixed responses

Legal experts gave mixed reactions to the Vice President’s latest move to stop her impeachment.

Retired SC associate justice Adolfo Azcuna claimed the direction of the impeachment proceedings was “already bordering on a fishing expedition” because the committee appears to be gathering additional evidence that did not come from the complainants.

“Essentially, they should not try to improve the evidence submitted by the complainants. They should examine what are the evidence submitted by the complainants. If they go beyond that, that’s fishing expedition already,” Azcuna said over Bilyonaryo News Channel.

On the other hand, constitutional law expert and former Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) president Domingo Cayosa maintained the House justice panel was “acting very well within their powers to investigate.”

“They’re very careful. It’s not that they have to accept every affidavit and evidence as truth. The determination of sufficiency in form and substance is just preliminary. It’s still their task to examine everything,” Caysosa said over dzBB in Filipino.

Meanwhile, Ridon said a Manila court has granted the request of the House committee on justice to allow detained self-confessed Duterte bagman Ramil Madriaga to appear in the next committee hearing on April 14. – Delon Porcalla, Jose Rodel Clapano, Bella Cariaso