The supposed branding of the House impeachment proceedings as a "kangaroo court" by the camp of respondent Vice President Sara Duterte makes no sense at all to House Assistant Majority Leader Lanao del Sur 1st district Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong.

This, especially since the House Committee on Justice has been observing the recent rulings on impeachment by the Supreme Court (SC), which the Duterte camp sought intervention from during the 2025 impeachment case.

"If you remember, the term of the Vice President lauded, in fact, applauded the decision of the [SC], sabi nila tama (they said it was correct),” Adiong said in a statement Sunday, April 5.

“But now that we are doing exactly what the [SC] has said, na hindi na tayo din diretso sa plenary (that is for us not to go straight to plenary) because we need to provide and observe and extend due process to the respondent, which we are doing, sinasabi naman nila kangaroo court (but they're now saying it's a kangaroo court). I heard some of the defense mentioned a kangaroo court,” noted the Mindanao solon.

The House of Representatives impeached Vice President Duterte via the fast-track mode on Feb. 5, 2025. However, the SC--acting on a petition from Duterte’s lawyer--declared the impeachment complaint unconstitutional due to a technicality in a July 2025 decision.

The high court doubled down on this in another ruling on the impeachment earlier this year.

For 2026 impeachment complaints against Duterte, the House has been more methodical. The justice panel was tapped to carry out hearings on the initiated impeachment complaints against Duterte for the purpose of determining sufficiency in form, substance, and grounds.

Adiong said the committee hearings were being conducted precisely to comply with the SC's directive that due process must be observed in impeachment proceedings.

The 2025 case--which prospered in the House based on the chamber’s rules--didn't go through this "committee track".

That's why, for Adiong, it's simply hard to reconcile the Duterte camp's criticisms on both this year's case and last year's case.

“In fact, if you remember when the [SC] came out with the decision, ‘di ba, ‘yung unang impeachment complaint (about the first impeachment complaint), citing it as unconstitutional, and the [SC] also added some other procedures to the rules or procedures of the House of Representatives, meaning, sabi nga, nung nag-pen nito si Associate Justice [Marvic] Leonen (when Associate Justice [Marvic] Leonen penned this), the House should be conscious about observing due process to be given to the respondent.

"And that is exactly what we are doing right now,” underscored Adiong, chairman of the House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms.

He says the House is no longer moving straight to plenary because it is now extending the very due process that Duterte’s camp had earlier invoked before the high tribunal.

“This is in compliance with the [SC] ruling na kailangan tawagin sila (that they must be informed) during the preliminary inquiry to determine the grounds of the complaints under the articles of impeachment by the courts of impeachment,” Adiong explained.

"We cannot be selective on how we respect the constitutional mandate regarding the observation of the House of Representatives right now, when it comes to adopting its own rules in compliance with the [SC] ruling,” he argued.