The Supreme Court (SC) did not issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) that could have immediately stopped the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Instead, the SC directed the filing of a comment from respondents within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of the notice.

It was not known as of posting time if the SC would still tackle the TRO plea once the comment is filed and received.

The directive was issued by the SC during its full court session on Wednesday. Duterte’s petition was dated March 30, 2026 but was received by the SC last April 1.

Directed to file comments were the House of Representatives HOR) represented by Speaker Faustino G. Dy III, House Committee on Justice through Rep. Gerville A. Reyes Luistro, the Senate through its President Vicente C. Sotto III.

Also named respondents were Joel T. Saballa, Joselito S. Sarabia, Edilberto J. Baculi, Rogelio D. del Rosario, Leonard P. Arevalo, Pinky L. Tam, Maria Loreto A. Lopez, Jalilio O. Dela Torre, Democrito C. Barcenas, Lourdes U. Barcenas, Ma. Liza H. Ruedas, Violeta B. Cecilio, Geraldine J. Denoga, and Nathaniel G. Cabrera.

The petition was filed through the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law offices.

In her petition, Duterte told the SC: “The impeachment proceedings against the petitioner (Duterte) are unconstitutional and continuing with them will result in a miscarriage of justice and a mockery of processes that our Constitution and laws have always aimed to protect.”

This is the second time Duterte challenged before the SC the impeachment complaints initiated against her.

In the decision issued in July 2025, the SC declared unconstitutional the impeachment complaint filed by the HOR before the Senate, as impeachment court.

The SC ruled that the impeachment complaint is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and thus, the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings.

But the SC clarified in its decision that “it is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting Feb. 6, 2026.”

In her petition, Duterte told the SC that the House Committee on Justice is, in effect, conducting a “trial” on the impeachment complaints filed against her.

She said: “It is evident that the proceedings before the respondent committee are, in truth and substance, a trial in disguise. Its members’ use of various nomenclatures such as ‘mini-trial,’ ‘hearing proper’ or a ‘process akin to a preliminary investigation’ does not change its true nature.”

Thus, she added that to allow the House committee members to undertake a trial to engage in a “fishing expedition” is to “allow them to circumvent the limits of their function and usurp the prerogatives of the impeachment court solely vested in the Senate acting as such.”

At the same time, Duterte said that there are “no ultimate facts” alleged in the impeachment complaints.

The Vice President was sought to be impeached on the alleged misuse of her confidential funds, alleged non-declaration of her assets, alleged abuse of power, and her alleged threats against President Marcos.

But she told the SC that the accusations against her fell short of the gravity required to amount to a betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption or bribery, culpable violation of the Constitution, or high crimes.

She pointed out that there have been no final decisions on the alleged violations imputed against her.

She also told the SC:

“Unless urgently restrained, the respondents HOR and Committee on Justice will continue to trample upon not only petitioner’s constitutionally-guaranteed rights but also of all individuals subject of the respondent Committee on Justice’s compulsory processes.

“The continuation of the proceedings before the House Committee on Justice will continue to harm not only the petitioner but also of the individuals subject of the subpoenas it issued.

“How the Honorable Court decides the fate of the Vice President will not just reflect the individual beliefs of each Justice but also echo the sovereign will of the people and restore the Filipino people’s faith in government and the institutions that lead them.

“It is a pivotal point in our history and it is the Supreme Court alone that can define the quality of our democracy and determine the course of our nation.”

The Vice President’s petition was consolidated with the petition filed earlier by lawyer Israelito P. Torreon vs the HOR’s Committee on Justice.