Retired Supreme Court (SC) Justice Adolfo Azcuna warned that the House of Representatives (HOR) may be overstepping its role in the impeachment process against Vice President Sara Duterte, urging lawmakers to avoid turning preliminary proceedings into a full-blown trial.

In a recent television interview, Azcuna said the House Committee on Justice should keep its hearings “low-key” and avoid excessive public spectacle. 

He stressed that impeachment proceedings risk becoming performative rather than procedural.

Azcuzna also underscored that the committee’s mandate is limited to determining whether sufficient grounds exist to elevate the complaint to the Senate, which has the sole authority to conduct an impeachment trial. 

“They should not be the ones to expound on the discrepancies… that will be preempting the role of the Senate,” Azcuna said, referring to issues such as the Vice President’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs).

Azcuna also warned that the panel may be “bordering on a fishing expedition” if it begins gathering evidence beyond what complainants have submitted. 

He said it is the responsibility of complainants—not Congress—to build the case, noting that going beyond this risks turning proceedings into an “inquisitorial” exercise, inconsistent with the country’s adversarial legal system.

“For example, they said in the resolution when there is a hearing in the committee, it should be limited only to finding out whether or not the grounds are sufficient, the evidence is strong enough, and then copies are provided,” he explained. 

Azcuna went on. “So, in other words, a very limited role in the committee. What is important is the trial in the Senate and, of course, the action of the House in plenary.”

“The drama now, it seems to me, is being focused in the committee and perhaps the attempt, because they may feel that they don't have the votes in the Senate, they have the votes in the committee,” he added. 

The former SC justice sees that some lawmakers may be using committee hearings to publicly air evidence rather than secure a conviction in the Senate. 

“They might try to expose all their evidence in the committee already because the objective is not really to convict because they know they don’t have the votes, but to expose the Vice President,” he said, adding that it “can be done, they think, in the committee level.”

Azcuna noted that while the House has the power to subpoena witnesses, such authority should be used sparingly and within bounds. 

For instance, individuals like alleged bagman Ramil Madriaga may be summoned only to confirm affidavits, not to deliver full testimonies that would be more appropriate during a Senate trial.

“So they can adopt rules, and they have adopted rules on how far the committee at that level can investigate. So that's all right, as long as they do not impede on, they do not invade the power of the Senate to try the case,” he said. 

“And I think they are bordering on that, because they are summoning witnesses, vital witnesses, and I think they plan to expose the whole testimony of this witness already in full, as if it's a full dress trial, when it should be more on determining whether or not it has probable cause," he further pressed. 

Azcuna emphasized that impeachment, historically rooted in systems like those of England and the United States as a constitutional alternative to removing abusive leaders without violence, should not devolve into public entertainment. 

In the Philippines, he lamented, the process risks becoming a “teleserye” if not handled with restraint.

Despite his concerns, Azcuna clarified that the House may continue its investigation as long as it does not encroach on the Senate’s exclusive power to try impeachment cases, urging lawmakers to strike a balance between transparency and due process.