A group of lawyers challenged before the Supreme Court (SC) the alleged unconstitutional acts by the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives (HOR) and sought a stop to the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.
The petitioners were lawyers Israelito P. Torreon, Rescie Angelli R. Rizada-Nolasco, Martin B. Delgra III, Wendel E. Avisado, James Patrick R. Bondoc, Victor R. Rodriguez, Raul Lambino, Luna Maria Dominique Acosta-Manlitoc and Jesus Hinlo Jr., and Dr. Richard T. Mata.
Named respondents in the petition filed on Friday, March 27, were the House Justice Committee represented by Rep. Gerville Luistro, and the HOR represented by House Speaker Faustino Dy III.
The petitioners told the SC that they filed the petition as Filipino citizens and taxpayers. “When constitutional boundaries are crossed, someone must go to Court," they said.
Torreon and his group accused the House Committee on Justice of applying a double standard and pointed out the dismissal of the impeachment complaint against President Marcos where the committee allegedly applied a "strict threshold" regarding personal knowledge and factual basis.
The petition raised alleged constitutional red flags
The petitioners claimed that the committee is using subpoenas to "cure" defects in the complaints and argued that if a complaint is insufficient in substance at the start, it must be dismissed rather than bolstered through a "fishing expedition."
They also alleged that the complaints rely on "conclusions" and "suspicions" rather than a direct recital of facts linking the Vice President to specific offenses.
At the same time, they told the SC that there was a procedural overreach as they pointed out the March 25 approval of sweeping subpoenas for bank records, National Bureau of Investigation materials, and affidavits as an act that exceeds the committee’s constitutional role of "screening" cases.
They said: "This petition is not about shielding the Vice President from accountability. It is about ensuring that accountability remains constitutional. Impeachment is a sacred process, not a political free-for-all."
They asked the SC to issue a writ of prohibition that would restrain the House Committee on Justice and the HOR “from proceeding further with any act that advances, implements or derives from the assailed third and fourth impeachment complaints, including hearings, deliberations, voting, subpoenas, compulsory processes, committee reports, resolutions, recommendations, and any committee or plenary proceedings anchored thereon.”
The SC is now in recess and will resume its sessions on April 6.