House Committee on Justice Chairperson Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville "Jinky Bitrics" Luistro has highlighted a major contradiction in Vice President Sara Duterte camp's line of argumentation between the 2025 and 2026 impeachment proceedings.

The crux of the matter is the Duterte camp's appreciation of the notion of "due process" as it pertains to the House of Representatives' impeachment proceedings against her.

It all started on Feb, 5, 2025 when the House impeached Duterte via the fast-track mode in plenary--something that didn't go through the justice committee, because House rules said it didn't have to.

Duterte camp's challenged it before the SC, which ultimately declared the impeachment complaint and articles of impeachment unconstitutional due to a technicality.

In the ongoing 2026 impeachment proceedings, the House became more methodical in its approach and chose the committee track to satisfy the rulings of the SC--the separation of powers between the legislature and tje judiciary notwithstanding.

“Si VP Sara ang humihingi ng due process [last year]. Nag-utos ang Supreme Court ng hearing para sa due process. Ngayong may hearing na, kinukuwestiyon na naman nila ang hearing,” Luistro said.

(VP Sara herself asked for due process [last year]. The Supreme Court ordered a hearing for due process. Now that there is a hearing, they are once again questioning the hearing.)

Luistro was alluding to a letter sent by Duterte's lawyers to the justice panel last March 24, a day before the start of the "hearings proper" of the impeachment case. The letter indicated that the neither the respondent not her legal team was going to participate in the House panel proceedings for supposed lack of jurisdiction.

As per the Duterte camp, only the Senate--convened as an impeachment court--can hold a trial on the respondent based on the allegations of the complainants.

But for Lusitro, the Duterte camp is questioning the very process it previously invoked. “Ano ba talaga ang gusto nila? (What do they really want?)” the Batangueña wondered.

Luistro insisted that the ongoing panel proceedings were not a trial but part of the constitutional process of determining whether probable cause exists in the two active impeachment complaints against Duterte.

“The purpose of this clarificatory hearing really is only to determine probable cause… justification to proceed to [a Senate impeachment] trial,” Luistro said, echoing her earlier explanation.

She stressed that the House is not making any determination of guilt. “Prior to the determination of probable cause, we are investigators. We are trying to raise clarificatory questions which will eventually guide us.”

The lawyer-legislator maintained that the committee’s actions are firmly grounded on three pillars: the Constitution, the House rules on impeachment, and jurisprudence from the SC.

“This is not new. This is not out of the Constitution,” said Luistro, who added that the House has the authority to “promulgate rules on impeachment".