VP Sara camp may bring House impeachment disputes to SC

The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte is considering elevating to the Supreme Court (SC) its objections to the ongoing impeachment proceedings at the House of Representatives, arguing that the process has gone beyond its constitutional bounds.

Lawyer Michael Poa, a member of Duterte’s legal team, said questioning the proceedings before the High Court is “definitely a possibility,” as he maintained that the House Committee on Justice is conducting actions that resemble a trial, something he said should fall under the Senate’s authority.

In a television interview on Thursday, Poa clarified that the defense is not disputing the House’s power to initiate impeachment complaints, but rather its “method of determining probable cause.”

According to Poa, the committee should limit its evaluation strictly to the complaints filed and the evidence attached to them.

“They are confined only to the evaluation of the complaints and their attachments,” he said, stressing that probable cause must be determined within the “four corners” of the complaint.

He raised concerns over the panel’s issuance of subpoenas for documents, which he said go beyond the scope of the complaints and signal a shift toward trial-like proceedings.

“Ang nangyayari kasi ngayon, they’re going beyond dun sa allegations, evidence attached. They’re now issuing subpoena left and right for certain documents and so we feel na trial na to,” he added.

The House panel has ordered the submission of tax records of Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, along with corporate documents of businesses linked to them. 

It also sought copies of the Vice President’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs), in relation to allegations of unexplained wealth.

Poa argued that while the committee has the power to issue compulsory processes, its role at this stage should remain “clarificatory,” similar to a preliminary investigation, and not involve building a case by gathering new evidence.

“Kung walang naka attach na ebidensya doon sa complaint, what now gives the prosecutor to now search for other pieces of evidence that aren’t included there? Because it’s up to the complainants to build their case,” he said.

When asked whether prosecutors are allowed to conduct case buildup to meet evidentiary standards, Poa maintained that the House’s actions encroach on the Senate’s exclusive mandate to try impeachment cases.

Despite raising constitutional concerns, Poa said the defense team is still weighing all legal remedies before making its next move.

“We are considering all remedies possible… kaya nga sinimulan muna natin sa committee (that’s why we will that here at the committee),” he said.

Meanwhile, political analyst Malou Tiquia echoed criticisms that the proceedings have turned into a “fishing expedition,” showing a lack of sufficient evidence.

Tiquia supported the position of  Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, who earlier questioned the breadth of the subpoenas issued by the House panel.

“I agree with Congressman Rufus Rodriguez that it is a fishing expedition. Those things that they are asking… only gives you a view of there is insufficiency in substance,” she said,” she said in a separate interview.

The subpoenas, approved upon the motion of Terry Ridon, include requests to the Bureau of Internal Revenue for income tax returns from 2007 to 2025, and to the Securities and Exchange Commission for records of companies allegedly linked to Duterte and her family.

Rodriguez was the lone dissenter in the panel’s near-unanimous vote.

Tiquia questioned the relevance of documents dating back to Duterte’s earlier years in public office, noting that impeachment should focus on acts committed during her tenure as Vice President.

“She is being impeached as a vice president… it should have covered 2022 to the present,” she said.

The analyst also warned that the broad scope of the requests could create a narrative of wrongdoing without firm evidence, adding that some lawmakers appeared uncertain about the corporate entities being cited. 

“So if you look at the way they are asking, they are laying already the predicate that there is illegal wealth,” she said.

She went on. “You don’t even know when those companies were set up. You don’t even know, are they really shareholders?”