Vice President Sara Duterte dismissed claims of her opponents in the House of Representatives that they have the numbers to impeach her for the second time in two years, even as she maintained that the process has been abused.

In an interview during yesterday’s celebration of the 89th Araw ng Dabaw, the second-highest official said she has not been paying attention to the developments in the House.

Duterte said she is focusing instead on the price crisis that has hit the nation as a result of the conflict in the Middle East.

Lawyers for Duterte questioned the constitutionality and jurisdiction of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Justice to conduct the public impeachment hearings that started on 25 March.

The defense team submitted a letter to the House Committee on Justice, headed by Batangas Representative Gerville Luistro, in response to an invitation and subpoenas to the Vice President.

In it, they acknowledged the invitation but explicitly declined to participate, stating that the House committee and its members “lack jurisdiction to conduct any form of trial.”

Senate’s sole prerogative

They cited Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Constitution, which vests the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment exclusively in the Senate.

Neither Duterte nor her lawyers appeared before the committee on the first day of the hearings.

The defense team viewed the proceedings as an improper “mini-trial” or evidentiary hearing beyond the committee’s constitutional gatekeeping role of determining sufficiency of form and substance before it would send any articles to the House plenary.

The lawyers stressed that Duterte “is always ready to answer the allegations raised against her, provided it is in the proper forum, which is the Senate impeachment court.” They also noted that her physical presence was not legally required at the preliminary stage and that prior written submissions had already addressed the issues.

The jurisdictional argument involves the House panel’s role, which should be limited to a preliminary review, not a trial-like process involving subpoenas for extensive evidence they described as a fishing expedition.

The petition stated that the justice panel committed a “grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.”

“The Constitution grants the House the sole power to initiate an impeachment, but that power is not absolute,” the petition read.

“It is bound by law, by due process, by the committee’s duty to dismiss complaints that fail the required threshold tests, and by a prohibition against converting an initiation of impeachment into a roving inquiry designed to build, rather than merely evaluate, a case,” it added.

Independent legal actions

A separate petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a temporary restraining order, was filed on 27 March by a group of lawyers led by Israelito Torreon, who clarified that they were acting as citizens/taxpayers, not as Duterte’s counsel.

The petitions echoed the objections raised in the 2025 impeachment case, which the Supreme Court nullified.

Duterte said she was not consulted by the lawyers when they filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the House process.

“They didn’t consult me, no, because I wasn’t thinking about impeachment at the time. I left all of that to the lawyers,” Duterte said.

The Vice President said she was nonetheless grateful to the petitioners, who took the initiative to raise constitutional issues in the impeachment process.

“Of course, I am grateful to the lawyers — independent lawyers not part of the defense team — who are still thinking of fighting for our Constitution and opposing the abuse of the impeachment process,” she added.

Election factor clouds votes

House Committee on Justice vice chairperson Representative Ysabel Zamora indicated yesterday that they have what is needed to move forward with the impeachment complaint against VP Duterte, despite the petition filed before the Supreme Court.

However, she acknowledged that some House members remained cautious, partly due to political considerations as the national elections approach.

Under the Constitution, at least one-third of the members of the House, or about 160 lawmakers, must endorse an impeachment complaint for it to be transmitted to the Senate for trial.

“I admit that some may be immediate. I admit that some congressmen have more questions than last year. Well, of course, since the next elections are closing in,” Zamora said, describing impeachment as “a political process.”

Despite this, the San Juan representative said her colleagues were gradually becoming convinced by the arguments and evidence presented in the complaint.

The lawmaker also maintained that the complaint contains sufficient evidence to justify the committee’s hearings, noting that the latest filing includes additional supporting documents.

“It’s the same case. And, in fact, there are more pieces of evidence now because additional attachments were included,” she said.

On questions of alleged bias, Zamora said the committee includes members of various parties and alliances and, therefore, she does not believe there is bias.

“Maybe for them, they saw that we declared the complaint sufficient in form and sufficient in substance. That’s why they’re saying there’s bias. But as I said, we haven’t even said yet that there is probable cause,” she said.