The Supreme Court of the Philippines has consolidated petitions questioning the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte but stopped short of halting the process, ordering respondents to submit their comments within 10 days.

In a press briefing on Wednesday, the High Court said it combined petitions filed by a group led by lawyer Israelito Torreon and by Duterte herself, both challenging the constitutionality of proceedings before the House of Representatives Committee on Justice.

“The SC consolidated these cases and, without necessarily giving due course to the petitions, directed respondents to comment within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of notice,” it said.

The Court clarified that it did not issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or any injunctive relief following its en banc session on April 8.

It also emphasized that requiring respondents to comment does not mean the petitions have been given due course, allowing the impeachment proceedings in the House to continue pending further action.

Constitutional challenge

In her petition, Duterte asked the High Court to nullify the actions of the House Committee on Justice, which she described as unconstitutional.

She cited an alleged violation of the Constitution’s one-year bar rule, arguing that two pending complaints should no longer prosper following the dismissal of one complaint and the withdrawal of another.

Duterte also questioned how the complaints were referred to the House committee, claiming the process bypassed proper plenary deliberations.

She further accused the panel of overstepping its authority by conducting what she described as a “trial in disguise,” arguing that such powers are reserved for the Senate acting as an impeachment court.

“The Constitution confers no such authority to try evidence, issues, and matters… that under the Constitution only the Senate acting as an impeachment court can do,” she said, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

She also questioned subpoenas issued for her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), business records, and reports from the National Bureau of Investigation and the Commission on Audit, as well as testimonies from several individuals.

Duterte argued that these actions indicate the committee is already adjudicating the merits of the case—powers she said belong solely to the Senate.

She also challenged provisions of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment, particularly Sections 7 and 8, which she said allow the committee to exercise powers reserved for the Senate.

“There is reason why impeachment is the road less travelled—it is often the wrong road,” she said.

Opposing views

Akbayan criticized Duterte’s move, saying it was an attempt to evade accountability.

Akbayan president Rafaela David said repeated court filings only delay the resolution of the case and urged the vice president to face the proceedings.

Meanwhile, Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon rejected Duterte’s claims, accusing her camp of misrepresenting facts and misinterpreting the Constitution.

Ridon maintained that the impeachment complaints were properly referred by the House plenary and that no violation of the one-year bar rule occurred, stressing that only one referral was made.

He also said the Committee on Justice is authorized to conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, and gather evidence under existing rules.

Separate environmental ruling

In a separate case, the Supreme Court issued a writ of kalikasan against a construction firm over alleged illegal quarrying activities in the Angat River–Bustos Dam Forest Reserve.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the Court ordered Halrey Construction Inc. and its representatives to immediately stop quarrying and similar activities in the protected watershed.

The tribunal also issued a temporary environmental protection order, citing findings that the operations caused increased erosion, sedimentation, and destruction of vegetation and wildlife habitats.

The Court warned that continued degradation of the reserve, protected under Proclamation No. 573, poses serious risks to communities relying on the Angat River–Bustos Dam watershed.

The writ stemmed from a petition filed by Narciso A. De Leon, who raised concerns over the environmental impact of the quarrying activities.

For now, both the impeachment proceedings and the environmental case remain ongoing, pending further submissions and rulings.