Petition filed at SC to stop impeachment

MANILA, Philippines — Supporters of Vice President Sara Duterte have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to stop the Senate from proceeding with her impeachment trial, saying the complaint was “haphazard and procedurally flawed.”

The group, led by lawyers Israelito Torreon, Martin Delgra III, James Reserva and Hillary Olga Reserva, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, asking the high court to declare the Articles of Impeachment “null and void” for failing to meet constitutional requirements on verification and proper initiation of impeachment proceedings, as well as failing to accord due process to Duterte prior to the filing with the Senate.

The petitioners asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a writ of preliminary injunction to bar the Senate from proceeding with Duterte's trial “based on the defective Articles of Impeachment.”

The House of Representatives and the Senate were named respondents in the petition.

The petitioners argued that the fourth impeachment complaint filed against Duterte, which was transmitted to the Senate on Feb. 5, was “rushed in a single day” and was not properly verified by the House members, in violation of Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution.

“The Constitution is clear: impeachment is not a tool for political expediency, nor should it be reduced to a mere numbers game among legislators seeking to consolidate power. It is a solemn process, bound by strict procedural requirements, meant to safeguard – not subvert – democracy,” the petition read.

“Yet, in reckless defiance of these constitutional mandates, the House has trampled upon the fundamental principles of justice, disregarded precedent, and undermined the voice of the people by weaponizing impeachment as a means to remove a duly elected leader,” it added.

They contended that the articles of impeachment were constitutionally infirm, considering that the requirement for proper initiation of a complaint was not satisfied and lacked proper verification.

They said the Constitution, specifically Article 11, Section 3 thereof, mandates that upon receipt of the impeachment complaint, the same should be included in the House— in the order of business within 10 session days. The Speaker, they said, should have referred it to the committee on justice within three days. They said these are mandatory provisions that were not followed by the House of Representatives.

They also said Duterte was not given prior notice before the filing of the complaint, in violation of due process.

“Here, Vice President Duterte was not given prior notice before the impeachment complaint was signed by 215 House Members. This denied her a fair opportunity to respond, thereby violating her constitutional rights,” the petition read.

Petitioners also questioned the non-action of the House of Representatives on three other impeachment complaints filed earlier.

‘Political maneuvering’

They also claimed that the impeachment of Duterte was used as a “tool for political maneuvering rather than as a constitutional mechanism for accountability” and was “railroaded by the House of Representatives” as the complaint “came like a thief in the night.”

“If impeachment is wielded as a mere political weapon rather than as a legal instrument for ensuring accountability, then the very essence of constitutional governance is imperiled. The House of Representatives must rectify these procedural lapses and reaffirm its commitment to constitutional due process to preserve the integrity of its legislative functions,” they said.

“Thus, the Honorable Court must act promptly on these issues because the transmittal of this void impeachment complaint to the Senate will disrupt that chamber’s normal legislative work and focus would shift to another unsettling impeachment trial that had already precipitously divided the nation,” the petitioners added.

They also noted the filing of the impeachment complaint “was rushed, a blitzkrieg maneuver.”

“The impeachment process demands thorough deliberation, careful analysis, and a firm understanding of the legal and factual basis of the complaint,” they said.

“However, in the case of the February 5, 2025 impeachment complaint, the 215 House members collectively spent only 4-5 hours to complete the verification process. When broken down mathematically, this means that each member had only about 1.4 minutes to read and verify the complaint—an amount of time grossly insufficient for any meaningful review,” they said.

Under pressure

Petitioners also cited several statements of lawmakers who claimed they only voted in favor of the impeachment complaint for fear of losing fund allocations for projects in their respective districts and they were pressured to align with the majority to avoid being labeled as part of the opposition.

They claimed Duterte has been the target of a “calculated political demolition job orchestrated by the administration and its allies, aimed at crippling her political influence and eliminating her as a formidable contender in the 2028 elections.”

“The speed and intensity of the impeachment proceedings is a deliberate effort to permanently damage her public image, rather than a genuine pursuit of justice,” the petitioners maintained.

They also criticized the caucus held by the House of Representatives for the signing of the complaint, saying this means most of the signatories had not actually reviewed the complaint, investigated the claims or validated the supporting documents.

“Such haphazard and careless endorsement of impeachment complaints cannot be tolerated, as it turns impeachment into a political game rather than a constitutional process grounded on evidence and due process,” the petition read.

“These moves, including the filing of this void impeachment complaint, rather than strengthening democracy, set a dangerous precedent for using state resources to silence political adversaries,” they further said.

The impeachment complaints against Duterte were “based on the grounds of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.”

A copy of the verified complaints for impeachment was turned over to the Senate by the House of Representatives shortly before the former adjourned session last Feb. 5.

Earlier, lawyer Catalino Generillo Jr. asked the Supreme Court in a petition to compel the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court.

Objective

Meanwhile, Senators Ronald dela Rosa and Imee Marcos vowed to be objective if and when they stand as judges in the impeachment of Duterte.

“As a member of the impeachment court, as an impeachment court judge, I must also defend the integrity of the Senate as an institution to which I belong. I will be very objective, I will be apolitical, and I have to maintain my apolitical neutrality. I will read everything, weigh all the arguments from the prosecution and the defense, consider everything presented, and do my best to be objective,” Dela Rosa said in a chance interview Monday night.

Like Dela Rosa, Marcos said she would remain objective. “Of course, every day in the Senate, there are friends who get into trouble and get investigated. Every day, it’s our duty to be objective,” Marcos said.

“I don’t think it is necessary (to inhibit from the impeachment proceedings), we are fully aware of our duties as senators, we will all study pieces of evidence,” Marcos, who is very vocal in her support for Duterte, said.

She also voiced support for the Senate leadership’s position not to act with urgency on the impeachment trial.

“It is not justified for us to act with urgency. There’s been impeachment talk for two years already, and the House sat on the complaint for two months. Why should the Senate then hurry?” Marcos said. “That is the consensus here, that the Senate should not be pressured to rush this.”— Cecille Suerte Felipe