Legal experts split on SC’s detailed order in Sara Duterte case

VP Sara Duterte impeachment composite image from Inquirer files

MANILA, Philippines—Legal experts expressed mixed views on the Supreme Court’s directive requiring Congress to submit detailed information on the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, with some warning it could risk delaying or interfering with the Senate trial.

Atty. Howard Calleja, lawyer and constitutional law professor, said the Supreme Court’s order is “reasonable and in exercise of its judicial power,” but stressed that the Senate should move ahead with the trial since the high court did not issue a temporary restraining order (TRO).

“Internal rules and pressure of Congress are their own and cannot be interfered with by the Supreme Court except only in extreme circumstances where there is grave abuse of discretion,” Calleja told INQUIRER.net.

Calleja acknowledged there is a “risk of delay,” saying the petitions before the Supreme Court are an attempt “to put technicalities over substantial justice.” However, he emphasized that “since there is no temporary restraining order, the impeachment court should just go ahead with trying the case since there is no obstacle and the constitutional mandate to hear the case is valid.”

He added: “Broad power for judicial review is given under the Constitution, but any interference or reach on Congress should only be done if there is grave abuse of discretion.”

“I respect the SC order and [am] glad there is no TRO, so the Senate should just proceed with the trial,” he added.

‘Judicial courtesy’ could delay trial

Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima meanwhile cautioned that the Supreme Court’s order could give the Senate a reason to delay the impeachment trial “out of judicial courtesy,” even without any legal barrier.

She explained that the Senate might justify holding off on the proceedings so as not to render moot the issues now pending before the high court.

“Nakikita ko na na pwedeng gawin yan na dahilan ng Senado na sasabihin nila, out of judicial courtesy to the Supreme Court, para hindi maging moot and academic yung mga issues raised in those two petitions na kinonsolidate na nga ng Korte Suprema, ay hindi muna kami gagalaw. Hihintayin muna namin ang final resolution ng mga petisyon na yan,” she said in an interview with dzBB.

(I can see that the Senate might use that as a reason and say, out of judicial courtesy to the Supreme Court, that they won’t act for now so that the issues raised in those two consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court won’t become moot and academic. They’ll wait for the final resolution of those petitions first.)

Despite this, De Lima stressed there is technically no obstacle for the Senate to continue, pointing out: “Walang TRO, right? Wala namang ini-issue ang Korte Suprema, wala pa na temporary restraining order. So technically, strictly, wala muna dapat balakid sa ginagawa ng Senate.”

(There’s no TRO, right? The Supreme Court hasn’t issued anything, not even a temporary restraining order. So technically, strictly speaking, there shouldn’t be any obstacle to what the Senate needs to do right now.)

She expressed concern that most of the Supreme Court’s requests are directed at the House rather than the Senate, which, in her view, hints at doubts about whether the House followed the proper process.

De Lima also described the Supreme Court’s move as having “the hallmarks of what we call judicial overreach,” and questioned why the Court was seeking details about the initial complaints filed by private citizens, even though the Senate trial is based on the complaint directly endorsed by over a third of House members.

“So bakit interesado pa yung Korte Suprema doon sa first three [complaints] na finile ng private citizens and private groups? So marami pong kwestyon sa hakbang na yan ng Supreme Court,” she said.

(So why is the Supreme Court still interested in the first three complaints filed by private citizens and private groups? There are a lot of questions about that move by the Supreme Court.)

What the SC order seeks

In its July 8 resolution, the Supreme Court moved to consolidate the pending petitions related to the impeachment of Vice President Duterte and directed Congress to provide a comprehensive set of documents and explanations under oath.

The order spells out specific details that the House of Representatives must submit, covering both the early complaints filed by private citizens and the final Articles of Impeachment sent to the Senate.

Specifically, the Supreme Court required the House to address the following points:

• The status of the first three complaints filed by private citizens
• The exact date(s) on which the complaints filed by the private citizens were endorsed by a member or members of Congress
• As to the complaints filed by private citizens, whether the House Secretary General possesses discretion on when to transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives any impeachment complaint properly endorsed by a member or members of Congress
• As to the complaints filed by the private citizens, the basis and authority of the House Secretary General to refuse the transmittal of the complaints for impeachment to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for inclusion in the Order of Business within 10 session days from the time it was properly endorsed by a House member
• As to the complaints filed by the private citizens and regardless of the legal position of the respondents, the number of session days that lapsed from the time the complaints were properly endorsed by a member of the House of Representatives to its transmittal to the speaker of the House of Representatives and its inclusion in the Order of Business
• As to the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate, which office or committee prepared the draft of the Articles of Impeachment, and when it was completed
• As to the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate, when it was circulated to the members of the House of Representatives, and whether it was circulated to all the members of the House of Representatives
• As to the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate, when it was circulated to the members of the House of Representatives, whether it was accompanied by the evidence for each Article charged, or if there was a committee report for the information of the members to decide on whether to endorse or not
• As to the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate and as to the evidence supporting each and every Article, whether Vice President Sara Z. Duterte was given the opportunity to be heard on the evidence shared with the members of the House of Representatives
• As to the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate, whether each of the members of the House of Representatives had time to peruse the charges and the evidence before affixing their consent, and
• As to the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate, when it was included in the Order of Business of the House of Representatives for consideration by the entire plenary

The Supreme Court set a non-extendible deadline for the House to comply with all these requirements, but notably did not issue a temporary restraining order that would halt the impeachment proceedings in the Senate.

House, prosecution team to comply

The House of Representatives has vowed to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive.

“We confirm that the House has officially received a copy of the Supreme Court’s Resolution dated July 8, 2025, in G.R. No. 278353 and 278359, or the twin petitions filed by Vice-President Sara Zimmerman Duterte and Atty. Isrelito P. Torreon, et al., to challenge the impeachment trial pending before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court,” said House spokesperson Princess Abante.

“The House of Representatives and Secretary-General Reginald S. Velasco, as respondents in the said petitions, have been required to submit the additional information enumerated in the Resolution, and will comply accordingly,” she added.

READ: House vows to submit additional impeachment details to SC

Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua, a member of the House prosecution team, emphasized there is no legal basis for delaying the Senate trial in light of the Supreme Court’s directive.

“Now, some may ask if we should wait for the SC to release its decision, but we think there is no reason for the Senate to wait for whatever would be the decision of the Supreme Court because it did not issue any TRO. So as of now, trial should proceed until the Supreme Court asks it to stop,” Chua said.

“Rest assured, this would not affect the still pending impeachment trial,” he added.

Chua said the House would comply with the directive from the Supreme Court:

“What the Supreme Court is asking is clear; this is part of resolving the issue thrown at them, and the House will comply with the directive, even the Senate is asked to comply.”

READ: Chua okay with SC directive on impeachment: It shouldn’t hinder trial

Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon also agreed, noting:

“There is no TRO issued by the Supreme Court so this means, we will proceed with Supreme Court deliberations, but again the Senate should still proceed in the soonest time with a trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.”