Ridon: SC should junk Sara Duterte petition due to fraudulent claims

MANILA, Philippines — The petition filed by Vice President Sara Duterte seeking to stop impeachment proceedings against her should be junked by the Supreme Court (SC) due to fraudulent claims, Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said on Wednesday.

Ridon, in an ambush interview at the Batasang Pambansa complex, said that Duterte’s lawyers are lying when they claim that, under the rules on preliminary investigation of criminal cases, prosecutors cannot add evidence to bolster a case.

The lawmaker stressed that prosecutors can issue subpoenas to clarify the evidence and the charges alleged against an individual, which is also the case for the House of Representatives’ committee on justice when it summoned certain documents and personalities to attend the hearing.

“This is just an attempt from the Vice President’s lawyers to mislead the people, after they claimed that under preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor, they cannot add documents and evidence.  That’s not true,” Ridon, a lawyer by profession, explained.

“I reviewed the rules again because I might be gaslighted, but it is clearly stated there that prosecutors can issue a subpoena ad testificandum duces tecum to clarify the matters of the case.  So it is not true that even at the preliminary investigation stage, the prosecution has no power to seek additional evidence and documents,” he added.

This, Ridon said, should prompt the SC to junk the petition “on the basis of fraud.”

“Well, I think the penalty for all of these deceptions by the lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to immediately junk this petition on the basis of fraud.  Because the facts of what had happened are pretty clear to the public and to the nation,” he said.

Ridon did not specify where in Duterte’s petition it was mentioned that prosecutors can no longer add evidence, but paragraphs 190 to 192 questioned the quantum of evidence presented by the complainants.

According to Duterte’s legal team, the Department of Justice (DOJ) rules now require “prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction,” adding that these new requirements are based solely on the evidence at hand and not on finding additional evidence.

“This is a higher threshold than the previous ‘probable cause’ standard.  Reasonable certainty of conviction means that the evidence — whether testimonial, documentary, or physical — should be strong enough that, if unchallenged, it could establish all elements of the alleged crime and result in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt,” the petition read.

“It must be noted, however, that this higher quantum of evidence under the current DOJ-NPS Rules is established only by the evidence-at-hand, and not by the procurement of so-called additional evidence not contained in the impeachment complaints, as what the respondent Committee on Justice seeks to accomplish when it issued various subpoenas on March 25, 2026,” it added, referring to the DOJ’s National Prosecution Service.

The issue of acquiring more evidence to build a solid case against Duterte has been questioned several times.

The term “fishing expedition” has been mentioned several times by Duterte and critics of the impeachment. When Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno made a motion asking for a subpoena on documents vital to the impeachment, Duterte herself said that this only “reinforces” her long-standing belief that there is “no sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment case.”

READ: VP Sara Duterte: Diokno request proves impeachment case lacks evidence

When the committee met last March 25 to start the formal hearing on the two remaining impeachment complaints, Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez said that he objects the panel’s decision to subpoena Duterte’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) because it is a mere “fishing expedition,” noting that there are no ultimate facts alleging SALN-related violations.

READ: Duterte impeachment: House panel subpoenas threat probe record, SALNs 

But both Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro and Manila Rep. Joel Chua have opposed claims that the committee on justice is engaged in a fishing expedition, noting that since they operate as a prosecutor, the panel can summon additional evidence that could make the case against Duterte stronger.

Luistro, chairperson of the House committee on justice, said that there is nothing wrong with summoning more evidence as long as it is “connected, germane, relevant to the allegations in the complaint.”

Duterte has asked the SC to stop the impeachment proceedings against her and declare it void ab initio as it is unconstitutional.

The vice president claimed that the process conducted by the House is “marred by grave abuse of discretion,” adding that two of the complaints supposedly violated the one-year ban rule under the 1987 Constitution.

READ: Sara Duterte seeks SC intervention to stop impeachment case

Several lawmakers have questioned this petition. Ridon, for example, labeled the move from the Duterte camp as a mere attempt to mislead the Court and the public.

READ: Ridon tags VP petition as ‘clear attempt to mislead Court and public’

Two of the four complaints remain under the jurisdiction of the House committee on justice: the first was set aside for allegedly violating the one-year bar rule, while the second was withdrawn by its petitioners.

Last March 4, both raps were declared sufficient in substance, prompting the committee to send the formal notice of the complaints to Duterte, giving her 10 calendar days to answer.

Duterte was able to beat the deadline last March 16, but complainants from the third and fourth impeachment complaints waived their right to reply to the Vice President’s consolidated verified answer ad cautelam as it was a non-answer.

READ: Complainants waive reply, say Sara Duterte failed to address issues 

Due to the waivers, the committee went straight to the determination of sufficiency of grounds in the complaints, making the process a little quicker than expected. After the grounds for the complaints were found sufficient, the committee moved to the proper hearing.

Last March 25, the committee approved motions to issue subpoenas to various personalities believed to be key witnesses in the impeachment proceedings, as well as documents believed to bolster the case against Duterte. /das