Void Sara impeachment, SC urged

The lawyers of Vice President Sara Duterte have filed a supplemental petition with the Supreme Court urging it to stop the impeachment proceedings against her and declare the articles of impeachment null and void.

The petition said their arguments remained pertinent even after the Senate remanded the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives.

The supplemental petition, drafted and finalized before the Senate’s action, seeks the immediate intervention of the SC to enjoin the Senate from proceeding with an impeachment trial.

Petitioners lawyers Israelito Torreon, Martin Delgra III, James Reserva and Hillary Olga M. Reserva et al. sought the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent irreparable harm and preserve the Vice President’s constitutional rights during the ongoing judicial review of the impeachment process’ validity.

The petition read, “The impeachment process, while inherently political in nature, must still be guided by the minimum requirements of constitutional due process, legality, and adherence to the rule of law.”

The petition argued that any violation of these fundamental principles by the House or the Senate warrants Supreme Court intervention under its expanded jurisdiction to address the grave abuse of discretion.

The petitioners asked the SC to “give due course to the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, and, most urgently, issue a TRO and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to immediately restrain the Senate from conducting an impeachment trial based on the fourth impeachment complaint.”

They also asked the High Court to declare the Articles of Impeachment null and void for failing to meet the constitutional requirements on verification and the proper initiation of proceedings.

They also cited the alleged failure to accord due process to Vice President Duterte before the filing of what they termed a “defective articles of impeachment.”

The petitioners also pointed to the “malicious non-action on not one but three prior impeachment complaints” which, they contended, was done to bar the application of the “Francisco ruling” that would have prevented the filing of the current fourth impeachment complaint against the Vice President.

They also sought a Grant Writ of Prohibition permanently enjoining the Senate from proceeding with what they deemed an invalid impeachment complaint.

Torreon clarified that they prepared and completed the petition before the Senate voted to remand the impeachment case to the House on Tuesday.

He said that following the filing at the SC, they would submit a subsequent manifestation to properly inform the Court of the latest developments in the Senate.

Torreon stressed that despite the Senate’s decision to remand the case, the core issues raised in their supplemental petition remained highly relevant.

He said, “The issues that we raised in the supplemental petition are still relevant and important in the resolution as to whether or not the present impeachment complaint should be dismissed; then we decided to continue with the filing of the same today.”

One of the key arguments raised by Torreon and his co-petitioners was the issue of “legislative discontinuity” — whether an impeachment complaint can carry over from one Congress to the next.

“Well, there is this issue as to whether or not the impeachment complaint can cross over to the 20th Congress. And that’s one of the issues that we raised here,” Torreon said.