Group of lawyers to SC: Nullify impeachment articles vs Sara Duterte
Vice President Sara Duterte (Composite image from Inquirer files)
MANILA, Philippines—A group of lawyers led by Atty. Israelito Torreon has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to intervene and nullify the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte for failure to meet Constitutional requirements.
While the case is pending, Torreon urged the SC to issue a restraining order preventing the Senate from acting on the impeachment case.
“Every act taken without resolving constitutional challenges further deepens the threat of irreversible damage not only to the petitioners, the Vice President but also to the public trust in constitutional governance,” the petitioners said.
“If this Honorable Supreme Court does not act now, its eventual decision may come too late—not because it lacks authority, but because the damage will have already occurred and cannot be reversed,” they added.
The petition followed the Senate’s convening as an impeachment court, which remanded the complaint to allow the House of Representative to rectify the supposed “constitutional infirmities” in the articles of impeachment raised by Senator Ronald dela Rosa.
READ: Sara Duterte impeachment court opens, but raps ‘remanded’ to House
In seeking the issuance of a TRO, the petitioners cited new and “critical” developments in connection with the impeachment proceedings before the Senate.
The petitioners particularly cited the decision of the Senate to finally convene as impeachment court after the senators led by Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero took their oath as senator-judges despite Constitutional questions about jurisdiction, continuity of proceedings from the 19th Congress to the 20th Congress and on the interpretation of the word “forthwith” in the Constitutional provision on the conduct of impeachment proceedings before the Senate.
“These cases, taken together, clearly establish that this Honorable Court has the authority to issue a TRO to prevent the unconstitutional abuse of impeachment proceedings,” the petitioners said.
They said it is up to the Court to determine whether there was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the House of Representatives when it transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
“The presence of constitutionally imposed limits on the power of Congress—such as the requirement for proper deliberation, verification process, adherence to internal rules, and the one-year bar for impeachment complaints—means that courts must not abdicate their role in ensuring these limits are observed,” the lawyers said.
On whether the 20th Congress can pick up and resume the impeachment trial left unresolved by the 19th Congress, petitioners said is “an unconstitutional usurpation of jurisdiction, violating the principle of legislative discontinuity and undermining the integrity of the impeachment process.”
“To permit the 20th Congress to resume the trial would be to allow a new Senate – composed partly of new members who did not receive or deliberate on the articles – to adjudicate a case for which they were constitutionally convened,” they added.
Aside from Torreon, other petitioners are lawyers Martin Delgra III, James Reserva, and Hillary Olga Reserva.
Aside from Torreon and his fellow lawyer’s petition, Duterte also filed a separate petition before the Court last February 19, seeking to declare as unconstitutional the fourth impeachment complaint filed against her for violating the One-Year Bar rule under the Constitution.
She argued that the fourth impeachment complaint violated the “One-Year Bar” under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, which states that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.
Duterte’s petition also sought the issuance of a TRO and/or a writ of preliminary injunction to immediately enjoin the Senate from conducting impeachment proceedings against her, which she branded as “politically-motivated.”
She said a TRO is necessary due to a violation of her constitutional right under Section 3, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
Last February, the Court directed both the House and the Senate to comment on Duterte’s petition.
However, the petition remains pending, including two other related petitions filed by high school teacher Barry Tayam and former Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) special government counsel Catalino Generillo Jr.
