Duterte allies ask SC: Stop Sara impeach trial
- A Senate impeachment trial would be based on a “defective” and “railroaded” complaint, said 28 individuals composed of lawyers from Mindanao, officials of Davao City, and other supporters of VP Sara Duterte.
- They asked the Supreme Court to issue a TRO vs. an impeachment trial.
- But House lawmakers decried the filing of the petition either as a “mere publicity stunt or an act of desperation,” while the Makabayan bloc called it out as a “last-ditch effort” to avoid scrutiny. The impeachment complaint against Duterte met all constitutional requirements for trial in the Senate because it was filed by at least a third of the House, they said.
As ordained in the Constitution, impeachment is an act of political justice and an exception to the judiciary’s monopoly on deciding cases. Impeachment is purely a political exercise,” he said.
A group of lawyers from Mindanao, officials of Davao City and other supporters of Vice President Sara Duterte petitioned the Supreme Court on Tuesday to stop the Senate from proceeding with her impeachment trial, arguing that it was based on a “defective” complaint.
In a 114-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, 28 individuals, led by lawyers Israelito Torreon, Martin Delgra III and Luna Acosta, asked the high tribunal to issue a temporary restraining order directing the Senate to “cease and desist” from conducting the impeachment trial. A conviction in the Senate trial would bar her from holding public office.
They cited, among other issues, the “malicious” inaction of the House of Representatives on the first three impeachment complaints filed in December. These were later archived after a fourth impeachment complaint was eventually endorsed by 215 House lawmakers and transmitted to the Senate late afternoon on Feb. 5.
This deliberate delay, the petitioners argued, was intended to circumvent the one-year ban rule, which prohibits initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a year.
Torreon serves as one of the legal counsels for detained televangelist Apollo Quiboloy, leader of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ sect and a close ally of the Duterte family, while Delgra previously chaired the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board during the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte. Acosta is an incumbent councilor of Davao City, the Dutertes’ hometown.
Other Davao City officials joining as petitioners were Vice Mayor J. Melchor Quitain Jr. and Councilors Bai Hundra Advincula, Al Ryan Alejandre, Dante Apostol Sr., Conrado Baluran, Jessica Bonguyan, Louie John Bonguyan, Pilar Braga, Jonard Dayap, Edgar Ibuyan Jr., Richlyn Justol-Baguilod, Myrna L’Dalodo-Ortiz, Diosdado Angelo Mahipus, Bonz Andre Militar, Alberto Ungab, Trisha Ann Villafuerte, Lorenzo Benjamin Villafuerte, Jesus Joseph Zozobrado III, Rodolfo Mande and Kristine May John Mercado.
Also among the petitioners are lawyers James Reserva and Hillary Olga Reserva, who represented Jey Rence Quilario, also known as “Senior Agila,” the leader of Socorro Bayanihan Services Inc.
No VP involvement
Speaking to reporters after the filing, Torreon clarified that Vice President Duterte had no involvement in the petition.
“I would describe [the 28 petitioners] as individuals who all love the Vice President, but that does not necessarily mean that we are being sponsored by Vice President Sara Duterte,” he said, adding that all of them voted for her in the 2022 elections.
The impeachment complaint against Duterte accuses her of culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes.
Seeking relief from the high tribunal, the petitioners asked the justices to declare the articles of impeachment null and void, claiming they failed to meet constitutional requirements on verification and proper initiation of proceedings. Specifically, they cited Section 3, Rule II of the House Rules on Impeachment, which requires a complaint to be verified by an affidavit affirming that the complainant has read the complaint and that its allegations are true and correct based on personal knowledge or authentic records.
“Here, there are NO AFFIDAVITS or separate pages containing the verification of the 215 members of the House of Representatives,” the petition read in part.
It argued that a complaint with improper verification is considered an unsigned pleading, which has no legal effect under Rule 7, Section 4 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Civil Procedure.
The first impeachment complaint was filed on Dec. 2, 2024, by Fr. Flavie Villanueva and Gary Alejano, and endorsed by Akbayan Rep. Percival Cendaña.
Subsequent complaints were filed on Dec. 4, Dec. 19 and Feb. 5—the same day the case was transmitted to the Senate.
The petitioners noted that for the last impeachment complaint, the 215 House members collectively spent only four to five hours verifying the document.
“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.
The petitioners cited the Supreme Court ruling in Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261), which clarified that an impeachment complaint is considered initiated upon referral to the House committee on justice.
Once initiated, any subsequent impeachment complaint within the same year is barred by the Constitution to prevent the harassment of public officials through multiple impeachment attempts in a short time frame.
The House of Representatives was also accused of “railroading” Duterte’s impeachment, with the petitioners alleging that the fourth complaint “came like a thief in the night.”
“The entire process was rushed on the adjournment day of the Congress’ 3rd Regular Session in an election year, to railroad the complaint through Congress without affording proper deliberation or substantial safeguards and cause its immediate transmission to the Senate at around 5:49 p.m.,” they said.
‘Panic mode’
At the House of Representatives, lawmakers on Tuesday decried the filing of the petition as a “desperate” move.
Ako Bicol Rep. Raul Angelo Bongalon, one of the 11 House prosecutors in the impeachment trial, dismissed this legal move as either a “mere publicity stunt or an act of desperation” while the Makabayan bloc called it out as a “last-ditch effort” to avoid scrutiny.
Bongalon maintained, “Even without reading the petition filed… we can assure the public that it can only mean two things: it’s purely a publicity stunt or unmistakable proof that the camp of the Vice President is on panic mode.”
He stressed that the impeachment complaint against Duterte met all constitutional requirements for trial in the Senate, where it was filed by at least a third of the House of Representatives and verified, with each member’s vote recorded.
“As ordained in the Constitution, impeachment is an act of political justice and an exception to the judiciary’s monopoly on deciding cases. Impeachment is purely a political exercise,” he said.
Bongalon accused the Duterte camp of resorting to delaying tactics to prevent the Senate from convening as an impeachment court which would publicly scrutinize evidence against the impeached Vice President.
“In their utter desperation, the Vice President’s camp is throwing the proverbial kitchen sink to stop the inevitable—for the Senate to commence trial and for the public to finally see the overwhelming and damning evidence against her,” he said, challenging Duterte’s camp to “stop these stunts and face us in trial.”
Meanwhile, in a statement, Makabayan lawmakers France Castro (ACT Teachers), Arlene Brosas (Gabriela Women’s Party) and Raoul Manuel (Kabataan) said the filing of the petition was a “desperate” legal move meant to obstruct justice and evade accountability.
“This is nothing but a last-ditch effort to escape scrutiny over the millions of [pesos in] confidential funds that were questionably spent under her watch,” Castro said. The impeachment complaint forwarded to the Senate cited Duterte’s alleged misuse of some P612.5 million in confidential funds on the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education when she was secretary.
Another petition
Earlier, on Feb. 14, lawyer Catalino Generillo Jr. petitioned the Supreme Court to order the Senate to “immediately” form an impeachment court and begin Duterte’s trial. (See related story on this page. )
Generillo, a former special counsel for the Presidential Commission on Good Government, specifically asked the high court to issue a writ of mandamus “directing the members of the Senate to immediately constitute themselves into an impeachment court and forthwith conduct the public trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte without further delay.”
“In the final analysis, the Constitution does not allow the Senate to procrastinate during the period it is in recess, whether it shall constitute itself into an impeachment court and try the Vice President,” he said.
Acting on Generillo’s petition, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Senate to file its comment within 10 days.
Asked whether the high court can intervene in impeachment cases, Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting told reporters on Tuesday that “in general, the Supreme Court is tasked to determine if the impeachment proceedings or rules are in accordance with the Constitution and if there’s any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Senate.” —WITH REPORTS FROM JEANNETTE I. ANDRADE, RYAN D. ROSAURO, GERMELINA LACORTE AND AP
