For being moot, the Supreme Court (SC) dismissed two consolidated petitions that challenged the proceedings before the House of Representatives (HOR) on the impeachment complaints against Vice President Zara Duterte.

In a resolution issued after its full court session on Wednesday, Aug. 5, the SC ruled that the issues raised in the petitions “had become moot, or no longer required resolution, because the HOR had already approved and transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.”

In a press briefer, the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said that “the HOR’s transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment marked the end of the HOR’s role in the impeachment process and the initiation of the impeachment case.”

As a result, the SC pointed out that the actions sought by the petitioners to stop the proceedings had already been completed.

“The SC further held that the impeachment process had already moved to the Senate, which had convened as an Impeachment Court and had begun proceedings. Any ruling on the validity of the actions taken by the HOR and its Committee on Justice would no longer affect the controversy,” the press briefer also stated.

It added that while the SC recognized that the High Court may, in exceptional cases, decide issues that have become moot, “it found that none of the recognized exceptions applied in this case.”

Resolved and dismissed by the SC were the separate petitions filed by the group of Atty. Israelito P. Torreon and Vice President Duterte.

In her own petition, Duterte told the SC that from the beginning, the impeachment complaints filed against her as well as the proceedings in the HOR’s committee which stemmed from the said complaints.

She argued that the impeachment complaints filed by Joel T Saballa et al and Nathaniel Cabrera are void ab initio (from the start) for violating the one-year bar rule under Section 3 (5) Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits the initiation of more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a period of one year.

She pointed out that the two complaints should not have prospered following the setting aside and the withdrawal of the first two impeachment complaints filed by former lawmaker France Castro and others, and by the civil society group leader Kiko Aquino Dee.

Aside from Torreon, the other petitioners were lawyers Rescie Angelli R. Rizada-Nolasco, Martin B. Delgra III, Wendel E. Avisado, James Patrick R. Bondoc, Victor R. Rodriguez, Raul Lambino, Luna Maria Dominique Acosta-Manlitoc and Jesus Hinlo Jr., and Dr. Richard T. Mata.

Named respondents in the petition filed last March 27, were the House Justice Committee represented by Rep. Gerville Luistro, and the HOR represented by House Speaker Faustino Dy III.

The petitioners raised alleged constitutional red flags.

They claimed that the committee is using subpoenas to "cure" defects in the complaints and argued that if a complaint is insufficient in substance at the start, it must be dismissed rather than bolstered through a "fishing expedition."

They also alleged that the complaints rely on "conclusions" and "suspicions" rather than a direct recital of facts linking the Vice President to specific offenses.

At the same time, they told the SC that there was a procedural overreach as they pointed out the March 25 approval of sweeping subpoenas for bank records, National Bureau of Investigation materials, and affidavits as an act that exceeds the committee’s constitutional role of "screening" cases.

They said: "This petition is not about shielding the Vice President from accountability. It is about ensuring that accountability remains constitutional. Impeachment is a sacred process, not a political free-for-all."