A clear attempt to mislead the Supreme Court (SC) and the Filipino people.

That's how Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon described the latest attempt from the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte to stop the House of Representatives' impeachment proceedings against the latter.

Ridon, a member of the House Committee on Justice that has been carrying out the impeachment hearings, was referring to the petition for certiorari and prohibition that was filed by the Duterte camp before the SC.

"This petition is anchored on a misrepresentation of facts and a distorted interpretation of the Constitution and prevailing jurisprudence. It is a clear attempt to mislead the Supreme Court and the public," he said.

The justice panel was furnished a copy of the 58-page document, which was signed by 11 lawyers working for the Vice President. The petition came with an "urgent application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction)".

"This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to declare as void ab initio the impeachment complaints against the petitioner and committee proceedings arising therefrom, including any and all incidents relative thereto," it read.

Ridon, himself a lawyer, went on to challenge the points raised in the petition. "First, it is untrue that the impeachment complaints were not referred by the plenary of the House."

"The official video footage of the Feb. 23, 2026 plenary session, at 3:48 PM, clearly shows that the referral of the four impeachment complaints was carried out by the House of Representatives in plenary, in accordance with Section 3(2), Article XI of the Constitution.

"This was not merely an act of the Speaker or the Committee on Rules. It was an act of the House sitting as a collective body," he said. Of the four complaints, two remain active and are the subjects of House hearings on the determination of probable cause.

For his second point, Ridon said there was no legal requirement for prior deliberation before referral to the justice committee, which triggered the "initiation" of the complaints.

"There is no provision in the 1987 Constitution, the House Rules on Impeachment, or Gutierrez v. House of Representatives that mandates deliberation prior to referral," he said.

"At most, [the] Gutierrez [case ruling] states that deliberation may take place—it is not a mandatory requirement. More importantly, during that plenary session, no member of the House moved to object to the referral or to initiate deliberation—not even allies, relatives, or close associates of the Vice President."

Ridon continued, "Third, there is no violation of the one-year bar."

He explained that the one-year bar rule applies only after a valid referral of an impeachment complaint.

"Public records clearly show that only one referral of the impeachment complaints to the House Committee on Justice took place, notwithstanding the setting aside of the Castro complaint and the withdrawal of the Dee complaint," Ridon said, referring to the two complaints dropped by the justice panel.

"Fourth," Ridon noted, "There is no violation of due process."

"The authority of the House Committee on Justice to conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, and gather evidence is firmly grounded in the Constitution, the House Rules on Impeachment, and established jurisprudence, including Duterte v. House.

"The Constitution does not require that all evidence be attached at the time of filing. The hearing process itself exists precisely to uncover the truth," the Bicol Saro solon said.

In an apparent statement directed at Duterte, Ridon said: "Enough of the deception. Enough of the falsehoods. It is time to face the truth."

"In the face of these misrepresentations, Congress and the House Committee on Justice will continue to discharge their constitutional duty to hold the Vice President accountable for issues involving confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and threats against the President," he said.