DAVAO CITY – A group of lawyers from Davao City filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition on Friday, March 27, before the Supreme Court seeking to stop the House Committee on Justice from proceeding with actions related to impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte.

The petition, filed by the Law Firm of Torreon and Partners led by Israelito P. Torreon, asked the High Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the committee and the House of Representatives.

In a 186-page Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a prayer for a TRO, the petitioners asked the High Court to stop the recognition and processing of the complaints, as well as any hearings, deliberations, or votes connected to them.

Court records showed the case, docketed as G.R. No. E-05546 and titled Israelito P. Torreon et al. versus House of Representatives Committee on Justice, represented by Hon. Gerville Luistro et. al., was filed on March 27 and raffled shortly after filing.

Other petitioners were lawyers Vic Rodriguez, Rescie Angelli Rizada-Nolasco, Martin Delgra III, Wendel Avisado, James Patrick Bondoc, Raul Lambino, Luna Maria Acosta-Manlitoc, and Jesus Hinlo Jr., and Dr. Richard Mata.

According to a statement, the petitioners argued that the panel committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it allowed the complaints to proceed despite what they described as constitutional and procedural defects.

Torreon said in a press conference here that the House allowed the third and fourth impeachment complaints to proceed despite what he described as deficiencies in both form and substance.

He noted that the lawmaker who supported the second complaint also backed the third. He added that the allegations were repeatedly repackaged, with the third complaint even presented publicly as an "improved version" of an earlier filing.

According to Torreon, this pattern suggests that endorsements were used as part of a continuing and strategic filing process.

Petitioners maintained that impeachment complaints that are insufficient at the outset must be dismissed outright and cannot be cured through subpoenas, hearings, or the presentation of additional evidence.

"The Constitution does not allow impeachment proceedings to become a fishing expedition," the petition stated, warning against the use of legislative powers to build a case rather than evaluate one.

The lawyers also questioned the committee's March 25 proceedings, alleging that the panel shifted from determining the sufficiency of the complaints to constructing a case beyond the allegations stated in the pleadings.

They said the committee's role at the threshold stage is limited to screening complaints.

The petition further challenged the committee's issuance of subpoenas and other compulsory processes, including requests for documents, affidavits, Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, tax records, and corporate records. According to the petitioners, these actions exceeded the scope of the complaints.

They also claimed that the third and fourth impeachment complaints were defective in both form and substance, citing alleged reliance on conclusions, hearsay, and unauthenticated materials rather than specific allegations of impeachable acts.

The petition raised concerns over alleged structural bias, asserting that some members of the House panel had already endorsed or publicly aligned themselves with the complaints.

The filing argued that while the House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment proceedings, such authority is subject to constitutional limits, due process requirements, and judicial review.

Petitioners also pointed to what they described as inconsistent standards, noting that the same committee had previously applied stricter requirements to impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.

They asked the High Court to issue a TRO halting all proceedings related to the complaints, declare the House panel's actions unconstitutional, and prohibit further steps based on the questioned complaints.

The petition also sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction after notice and hearing, and, ultimately, a writ of prohibition permanently restraining the respondents from pursuing the impeachment cases.

"This petition is not about placing Vice President Sara Duterte on accountability. It is about ensuring that accountability remains constitutional. Impeachment is a grave constitutional process. It is not a political free-for-all process," Torreon said in a press conference.

The Supreme Court has yet to issue any directive on the petition, including whether it will grant the TRO, as of posting time.