A legal team supporting Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio has urgently appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to halt the ongoing impeachment proceedings against her. The petition argues the House Committee on Justice overstepped its authority, potentially violating constitutional boundaries in its pursuit of impeachment.
The core of the argument centers on the committee’s decision to allow multiple impeachment complaints to proceed, despite alleged flaws in their initial submissions. Lawyers, led by Israelito P. Torreon, contend this represents a grave abuse of discretion, effectively lowering the bar for initiating impeachment—a process meant to be reserved for the most serious offenses.
Torreon emphasized the constitutional requirement for a solid factual basis *before* any investigation begins. He argued the committee’s subsequent issuance of subpoenas for documents and witnesses—including financial records and sworn affidavits—transformed the process into an unlawful “fishing expedition,” seeking evidence to *build* a case rather than investigate existing claims.
The committee authorized these subpoenas on March 25th, requesting extensive documentation related to allegations of misused confidential funds, threats against officials, and breaches of public trust—charges the Vice President vehemently denies. The move signals an acceleration of the impeachment effort, requiring support from at least 106 lawmakers to advance to a Senate trial.
The petition highlights concerns about due process, asserting the Vice President should be responding to a clearly defined complaint, not one that expands and evolves through ongoing evidence gathering. Allowing complaints to morph after initial submission, the lawyers argue, undermines fairness and erodes constitutional protections.
Notably, the legal team filed the petition as concerned “citizens and taxpayers,” distancing themselves from an official defense team role. This underscores their claim of acting in the public interest, safeguarding the integrity of the impeachment process itself.
The petitioners further allege a “double standard” in the committee’s approach, pointing to the dismissal of previous impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. for insufficient evidence. They suggest similar deficiencies in the complaints against the Vice President were overlooked, raising questions about impartiality.
House leadership swiftly rejected these claims, defending the proceedings as fully compliant with the Constitution and established Supreme Court precedent. Committee Chair Joel R. Chua dismissed the allegations as “hallucinations,” asserting the House deliberately adopted a strategy to avoid pitfalls encountered in past impeachment attempts.
Chua stated the House meticulously followed guidelines established by the Supreme Court in previous impeachment cases, aiming for a legally sound and defensible process. The stage is now set for the Supreme Court to weigh in on a potentially pivotal challenge to the impeachment proceedings.
