Metro Manila, Philippines – A group of lawyers allied with Vice President Sara Duterte turned to the Supreme Court on Friday, March 27, to stop the impeachment proceedings of the House of Representatives.
Led by Israelito Torreon, who had stood as counsel for the Duterte family, the group filed a petition for review and prohibition seeking a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against the House justice committee hearing.
In a press briefing, Torreon said his team filed the petition as taxpayers, not as counsel for the vice president.
Petitioners said the process was unconstitutional for allowing complaints that do not bear ultimate facts and that are defective in form and substance.
READ: Duterte ouster complaints hurdle substance requirement
“The House has the sole power to initiate impeachment, but not the power to relax its own threshold standards, tolerate complaints that fail to plead ultimate facts, abandon the discipline of sufficiency in form and substance, or convert constitutional screening into a fishing expedition,” the complaint read.
The group also said the committee had double standards when it weighed on the complaints against Duterte, comparing it to the dismissed case of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
The petitioners said the committee was “curing” supposed defects in the complaints through a “subpoena-driven evidentiary process,” referring to the documents and people summoned by the panel for the succeeding impeachment hearings.
“The process then escalated into subpoenas, hearings, and a compulsory process designed to search for the proof the pleadings failed to allege on their face,” the complaint read.
The group wanted the court to stop the committee from recognizing the complaints as sufficient in form, substance and grounds, continuing hearing and meetings, implementing subpoenas, and compelling witnesses to attend the proceedings.
It also urged the SC to restrain the panel from adopting and transmitting the committee report, as well as the Articles of Impeachment, which will be forwarded to the Senate, sitting as the impeachment court.
In 2025, the SC declared Duterte’s first impeachment as unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar rule or the prohibition against more than one impeachment proceedings on an official within a year. The case did not proceed to trial, in light of the ruling.
Duterte is facing two fresh ouster suits over betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, and high crimes, among others, filed in February 2026 after the one-year bar lapsed.
The complaints stemmed from allegations of public fund misuse as vice president and Education Secretary, threats to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., and unexplained wealth.
Consistent with Constitution
In a statement, the committee, chaired by Batangas 2nd district Rep. Jinky Luistro, said the impeachment process against the vice president is “consistent with the Constitution, rules on impeachment, and relevant jurisprudence.”
“The filing of a petition, by itself, does not suspend the constitutional functions of a co-equal branch. Accordingly, unless and until directed otherwise by the Supreme Court, the House will continue to perform its mandate,” the panel said.
Meanwhile, Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, who endorsed one of the impeachment complaints, urged the SC to tell Duterte “to stop using them to evade accountability.”
“May pa-bloodbath, bloodbath pang sinasabi noon. Sa simpleng committee hearing nga ay takot na takot ngayon…Hindi dapat pumayag ang Korte na palagi na lang silang ginagawang takbuhan ni Sara sa pag-iwas niya sa pananagutan sa batas,” she said.
[Translation: They used to talk a lot about a “bloodbath, bloodbath.” Now they’re already terrified even in a simple committee hearing… The Court should not allow itself to keep being used as Duterte’s refuge to evade accountability under the law.]
Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon called the petition a diversionary tactic, saying the justice committee is authorized to subpoena documents related to impeachment cases.
“Neither the Constitution nor the rules require that all evidence be attached to the impeachment complaint at the time of filing. The committee is fully empowered to undertake all necessary fact-finding measures to establish the truth,” he said.
