Allies of Vice President Sara Duterte have again turned to the Supreme Court of the Philippines, seeking to stop the impeachment proceedings that they say were tainted by serious procedural violations during the House Committee on Justice’s 14 April hearing.

In their 58-page petition, lawyer Israelito P. Torreon and other counsel argued that the committee committed “grave abuse of discretion” when lawmakers allowed discussions and evidence that were never part of the original impeachment complaints. 

They cited the 14 April hearing where members of the House Committee on Justice allegedly relied on a supplemental affidavit from whistleblower Ramil Madriaga—an affidavit the petitioners say was not formally filed, admitted, or authenticated as part of the official impeachment record.

Madriaga’s expanded testimony alleges he acted as a “dummy” in multimillion-peso transactions during the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte.

The hearing likewisel approved a subpoena for former senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who had publicly accused the Duterte family of hiding undisclosed assets—an action the petitioners now describe as politically motivated and “unsupported by facts on record.”

Lawmakers also tasked the Anti-Money Laundering Council with producing financial records covering 2006 to 2025. 

The petitioners argue this directive grew out of the 14 April discussion, which they claim improperly expanded the scope of the inquiry to include persons not subject to impeachment and transactions unrelated to the charges filed against the vice president.

It asserts that the proceedings showed how the committee allegedly reopened and reframed the case, effectively converting the verification stage into a full-blown investigation. 

They say lawmakers used Madriaga’s supplemental affidavit—submitted after the complaints were filed—to introduce new narratives without following constitutional and House rules on impeachment.

“There must be a stop to this abuse of power,” their filing reads, claiming that post-filing expansions, fishing expeditions, and sweeping subpoenas all stemmed from actions taken—or authorized—during the 14 April hearing.

They warn that without a temporary restraining order, the House may continue gathering documents and issuing subpoenas in ways that could prejudice the vice president and render the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling moot.

Apart from stopping the proceedings, the petition seeks a declaration that the committee committed grave abuse of discretion and that the impeachment complaints themselves are “unconstitutional and therefore null and void.”

Duterte herself previously filed a petition to the high court, asking it to stop the proceedings through a temporary restraining order (TRO). 

However, on 8 April, the Supreme Court did not mention a TRO issued in favor the Vice President, but instead directed that the House Justice Commitee to submit a comment within 10 non-extendible days.