SC could still halt impeachment probe of VP Sara via injunction

The Supreme Court (SC) may still issue a preliminary injunction that could halt the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, even if it does not immediately grant a temporary restraining order (TRO), a lawyer said.

In a television interview, lawyer Tranquil Salvador III said the High Court’s inaction on a TRO request should not be interpreted as a final denial of the plea for injunctive relief.

“Ordinarily, we would say the Court didn’t act on the TRO. But does it mean that the Court will not altogether consider it? We cannot say that with finality,” Salvador said.

Salvador, who was part of the defense team during the 2012 impeachment trial of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona, explained that the SC’s directive for respondents, including the House of Representatives Committee on Justice, to submit comments within 10 days is part of standard procedure.

He said this requirement does not yet mean the petition has been given due course, nor does it preclude future action on the request for an injunction.

“Without necessarily giving due course to the petition, they require a comment—and then the Supreme Court will study this,” he added.

The petitions, filed by Duterte and a separate group of lawyers, challenge the constitutionality of the impeachment proceedings, particularly the actions of the House justice panel. 

They argue that the committee allegedly exceeded its authority by engaging in broad evidence-gathering and violating due process safeguards.

The SC has consolidated the petitions and ordered respondents, including the House panel, to file their comments within a non-extendible 10-day period.

Salvador noted that while a TRO may no longer be immediately applicable since proceedings have already started, the Court could still opt to issue a preliminary injunction at a later stage.

Asked if such a remedy remains legally possible, he said: “Yes. I’m not saying it will, but because naturally it’s one of their prayers, it means the Court can consider or resolve the same.”

However, he stressed that any potential action from the High Court remains uncertain.

“It may happen, or it may not happen,” he said.

The House of Representatives Committee on Justice, one of the respondents in the case, has yet to complete its comment on the petitions. 

The SC earlier clarified that its directive to respondents to submit comments within a non-extendible period of 10 days does not mean the petitions have been given due course.