The Supreme Court (SC) has been asked to stop the ongoing trial of the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte.

In an urgent motion and manifestation on two separate pending SC petitions Duterte herself filed and lodged by others led by Atty. Israelito P. Torreon, challenged was the authority of Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero to preside over the proceedings at the Senate sitting as Impeachment Court.

The lawyers led by Torreon and other petitioners in the consolidated cases asked the SC to issue an injunction or appropriate interim relief ‘enjoining the Impeachment Court, its officers, agents, representatives, and all persons acting under its authority, direction, supervision, or in concert with it, from conducting or continuing the trial proper, receiving evidence, ruling on objections, issuing orders, enforcing processes, or otherwise giving further operative effect to the impeachment trial of petitioner Vice President Sara Z. Duterte until the antecedent constitutional question concerning the authority of the presiding officer is resolved.”

They also said the SC should ensure that the impeachment trial “proceeds only under Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials validly adopted, and only under a presiding officer whose authority to preside is not under serious and unresolved constitutional challenge, so as to avert any further taint upon the validity of the proceedings.”

They pointed out that the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials to provide for the election of a presiding officer in cases not involving the President adopted during the session of June 3, 2026 “was procedurally infirm on at least three counts: (i) there was no quorum, only twelve (12) of the twenty-four (24) Senators having been recorded present; (ii) the amendment was not preceded by the one-day advance notice required under the Rules of the Senate; and (iii) the Impeachment Court, having already adopted its own Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials on May 18, 2026, and being a body distinct from the Senate sitting in its ordinary legislative capacity, was not the body that adopted the amendment in the first place.”

Thus, they said the Impeachment Court presided over by Escudero is the product of the June 3, 2026 session which was assailed in an earlier petition.

“Notwithstanding this unresolved controversy, the Impeachment Court has proceeded, and continues to proceed, with the trial proper thereby compounding, with each passing session, the risk that the entirety of the proceedings may later be declared void for want of a validly constituted and validly presided tribunal,” they stressed.

They reiterated that the officer presiding over the impeachment trial derived his authority from the June 3, 2026 proceedings that have been challenged before the SC.

“A respondent in an impeachment case is entitled not merely to a trial, but to a trial before the constitutionally proper impeachment tribunal, presided over by an officer whose authority is lawfully derived,” they also stressed.

They also said: “The Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials were adopted by the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court on May 18, 2026 -- a body distinct from the Senate acting in its ordinary legislative capacity. No Impeachment Court was convened on June 3, 2026.”

Thus, they added that the “the June 3, 2026 amendment, even assuming arguendo that the Senate had quorum and notice, was adopted by the Senate acting as a legislative chamber, not by the Impeachment Court whose own rules were thereby purportedly altered.”

They then pointed out the distinction between the Senate as a legislative chamber and the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.

They said when the Senate sits for impeachment, senators act under oath or affirmation, not merely as legislators, but as constitutional triers since “the impeachment tribunal is governed by Article XI and by the rules applicable to impeachment trials.”

“An ordinary legislative proceeding cannot, by midstream amendment, alter the adjudicatory structure of an already constituted impeachment tribunal in a pending case, especially where the amendment affects the very officer who will preside over the trial,” they also said.

The lawyers added: “A ruling made, an order issued, or evidence admitted or excluded by a presiding officer without valid constitutional or legal authority to preside is void and confers no rights, precisely because a litigant -- including petitioner Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, whose fundamental liberty, public office, and constitutional status are directly at stake in the impeachment trial -- is entitled to have her case heard by the decision-maker designated by the Constitution and the law.”

They also said: “Due process in impeachment is not confined to notice and opportunity to be heard. It also requires trial before the constitutionally designated tribunal, acting through officers whose authority is lawfully derived. A respondent may be given all the time to speak and all the opportunity to object, but if the proceeding is presided over by one who is not constitutionally authorized to preside, the hearing remains constitutionally defective. Structural due process protects not only participation, but the legality of the tribunal itself.”

It was not known immediately if urgent motion and manifestation will be taken up on Wednesday, July 8, during the SC’s regular full court session.