The Supreme Court (SC) is set to deliberate on Vice President Sara Duterte’s petition on Tuesday, 25 February, which seeks to nullify the impeachment complaints filed against her by the House of Representatives and submitted to the Senate for trial. Duterte claims the complaints violate the Constitution.

Filed on 18 February through the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law offices, the petition was raffled on Monday, 24 February, to determine which justice will handle the case.

In addition to Duterte’s petition, the SC will also review a separate case filed by Mindanao lawyers and residents, who argue that the impeachment complaints are “null and void.”

The Court may direct the House of Representatives and the Senate, named as respondents, to submit comments on both petitions. There is also the possibility that the two petitions could be consolidated with another pending case that seeks an immediate Senate trial for the verified impeachment complaints.

Legal experts suggest that the SC might conduct oral arguments to address the constitutional issues surrounding the impeachment proceedings.

The complaints against Duterte cover six major allegations under seven articles of impeachment: conspiracy to assassinate President Marcos, misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds, bribery and corruption within the Department of Education (DepEd), unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets, involvement in extrajudicial killings tied to the Davao Death Squad, and destabilization through insurrection and public disorder.

In her petition, Duterte asked the SC for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the House from advancing the impeachment process and to stop the Senate from acting on the complaints.

She also requested a final injunction to nullify the fourth impeachment complaint filed on 5 February 2025. Duterte argued that the complaint violates the one-year bar outlined in Section 3(5), Article XI of the Constitution. If granted, the injunction would prohibit the Senate from taking any action on the fourth complaint.

The SC had previously ordered a response to a separate petition from lawyer Catalino Aldea Generillo Jr., who cited Section 3(4) of Article XI of the Constitution. This provision states that if at least one-third of the House of Representatives files a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment, it automatically constitutes the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate trial must proceed without delay.

Generillo emphasized that the term “forthwith” implies immediate action, referring to the Oxford Dictionary definitions such as “immediately,” “at once,” “instantly,” “directly,” and “without delay.”

Meanwhile, several Mindanao-based lawyers and residents have asked the SC to halt the Senate trial, contending that the Articles of Impeachment are “null and void.” They argue that the complaints fail to meet constitutional requirements for verification and proper initiation of impeachment proceedings. They also claim that due process was denied to Vice President Duterte prior to the Senate filing.