Stop impeach proceedings, Sara allies press SC anew

Stop impeach proceedings, Sara allies press SC anew | Daily Tribune

They said the justice panel committed “grave abuse of discretion” when the lawmakers allowed discussions and evidence that were never part of the original impeachment complaints.

The petitioners questioned the committee’s reliance on a supplemental affidavit issued by self-proclaimed “Duterte bagman” Ramil Madriaga despite its not having been formally filed, admitted, or authenticated as part of the official impeachment record.

In his extended testimony Madriaga said he was a “dummy” for multimillion-peso bank accounts during the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte.

He claimed he served as a “paymaster” for Sara Duterte during her 2022 run for vice president and alleged that her campaign was funded with drug and illegal gambling money.

Likewise, the Duterte lawyers’ plea to the Supreme Court protested the justice panel’s subpoena of former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV who had accused the Duterte family of having undisclosed assets in the billions.

The petitioners said Trillanes’ accusations were politically motivated and “unsupported by facts on record.”

Case ‘reframed’

The lawmakers also called on the Anti-Money Laundering Council to produce the financial records of the Dutertes from 2006 to 2025, the lawyers added.

The petitioners argued that this directive stemmed from the 14 April discussion which they claimed 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.

They asserted that the proceedings showed how the committee had reopened and reframed the case, effectively converting the verification stage into a full-blown investigation.

Further, they averred that the lawmakers used Madriaga’s supplemental affidavit to introduce new narratives without following constitutional and House rules on impeachment.

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

They warned that without a temporary restraining order (TRO), 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 sought a declaration that the committee committed grave abuse of discretion and that the impeachment complaints in themselves were “unconstitutional and therefore null and void.”

Sara’s TRO plea

VP Duterte herself had earlier filed a petition before the High Court, asking it to issue a TRO to halt the proceedings.

On 8 April, however, the Supreme Court did not issue a TRO in favor of the Vice President but instead directed the House Committee on Justice to submit its comment within 10 days.

Separately, three more lawyers — Hue Jyro U. Go, Micah Lorelle P. De Guzman and Jake O. Leoncini — filed a 34-page petition dated 20 April seeking a TRO against the third and fourth impeachment complaints.

They argued the House panel was improperly “building” a case and violating due process. They also cited the 2025 SC ruling voiding earlier complaints under the one-year ban and warned of “unnecessary public expenditure” from the proceedings.