The House of Representatives (HOR) asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the consolidated petitions that sought an immediate stop to the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a comment filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for the HOR and its Committee on Justice, OSG lawyers implored the observance of the principle of separation of powers with regard to the constitutional function of the HOR to ascertain the sufficiency of an impeachment complaint and initiating impeachment proceedings.

“Respondents (HOR, Committee on Justice) “humbly yet strongly maintain that the process and the manner of evaluating the sufficiency of an impeachment complaint is strictly within the authority of the House as vested in the Constitution and materialized in its Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings.”

The filing of the comment was directed by the SC last April 8 on the separate petitions filed by Vice President Duterte and the group of lawyer Israelito P. Torreon.

In her petition, Vice President 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.”

Duterte also 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.”

In its comment, the OSG – led by Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe – cited the SC’s Jan. 28, 2026 resolution on Duterte’s petition against her first impeachment.

The OSG said the SC declared: “Mindful of the doctrine of separation of powers, we reiterate that while this Court may define what constitutes initiation for constitutional purposes, we will not intrude upon the discretion of the respondent House of Representatives, as a collegiate body, to determine whether an impeachment complaint is sufficient in form and substance.”

The OSG pointed out that all branches of government – the judiciary represented by the SC and the legislative represented by Congress – “have distinct roles to partake in upholding public accountability.”

It said that the House has the mandate of initiating impeachment proceedings, while the SC exercises the power to settle actual cases and controversies which involve justiciable issues and call for the laying down of legal doctrine.

However, the OSG said that in the petitions filed against the impeachment proceedings, “what are being raised are matters which are entrusted solely to the scope and power of Respondents House and its Committee on Justice.”

It pointed out that “the findings of sufficiency in form and substance of the subject impeachment complaints and all actions emanating therefrom involve non-justiciable issues, as they are political questions in the purest sense.”

It stressed that the House Committee on Justice acted within the bounds of the Constitution and there has been no grave abuse of discretion that would warrant the SC’s exercise of judicial review.

Thus, the OSG said “the petitions are nothing more than an attempt to abuse the expanded power of judicial review as a means to avoid accountability – even before the constitutionally mandated impeachment process begins.”

The OSG’s comment tackled 11 issues which, it said, favored the dismissal of the petitions.

These are: The petitions present political questions exclusively committed by the Constitution to the House and its Committee on Justice; the petitions are non-justiciable for being pre-mature and not ripe for judicial determination; the Senate, as impeachment court, has the primary jurisdiction to determine the ultimate merit of the impeachment charges; the petition filed by the group of Torreon lacks standing whether as taxpayers or citizens; the four impeachment complaints against the Vice President were all validly referred to the Committee on Justice in accordance the provision of the Constitution; and the Saballa and Cabrera complaints do not transgress the one-year bar.

Also, the OSG said the Committee on Justice did not employ different standards in assessing the impeachment complaints filed against the President and Vice President Duterte; the Committee on Justice did not violate due process during the impeachment proceedings; the Committee is not carrying out a fishing expedition in determining the sufficiency and substance of the impeachment complaints; the determination of the sufficiency in substance is a matter entrusted exclusively to the body empowered to initiate the impeachment complaint; and the determination of the sufficiency in form is vested exclusively in the House and the arguments raised challenging the finding has no legal basis.

The OSG asked the SC: “Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court dismiss the consolidated petitions for being procedurally defective and for lack of merit. Respondents likewise pray that the Honorable Court deny all prayers for injunctive relief.”

Last April 8 during its full court session, the SC did not issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) that could have immediately stopped the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Duterte.

It was not known if the SC would still tackle the TRO plea after receiving the comment of the HOR through the OSG.

Named respondents in the consolidate petitions were the 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.

Earlier, lawyer Michael Poa, spokesperson of the defense team of the Vice President, had said that Duterte will attend the Wednesday, April 29, hearing of the House Committee on Justice.

Poa said that the Vice President maintained her decision not to appear before the House panel.

He said that it has been their position that the House hearings are not the proper venue for Duterte to answer the allegations 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.