Lawyers allied with Vice President Sara Duterte on Friday challenged the House Committee on Justice’s use of subpoenas, arguing before the Supreme Court that these were employed to build evidence rather than assess existing impeachment complaints.
The group described the subpoena process as a part of a “fishing expedition,” claiming it goes beyond the constitutional threshold required at the House level.
Even retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna warned that the proceedings against VP Duterte were bordering on a “fishing expedition” that potentially exceeded its authority.
He advised that the committee evaluate, not supplement, the evidence.
Azcuna argued that if the House panel actively seeks new evidence rather than solely reviews the evidence in the complaint, this constitutes a “fishing expedition.”
Under the Constitution, the role of the House body is to determine probable cause, not to build a new case by searching for additional evidence or overreaching its mandate.
In a briefing announcing their petition-in-intervention, the group described the use of subpoenas as a fundamental constitutional flaw in the proceedings, one that they said warranted their intervention in the case.
“We have specifically raised the issue of whether those proceedings and the subpoena issued pursuant to them constitute an impermissible fishing expedition designed to cure the facial infirmities of the complaints rather than examine the evidence supporting adequately pleaded and already sufficient charges,” said Edizer Luntan, secretary general of the One Bangsamoro Movement.
The counsels claimed that issuing subpoenas for evidence not originally attached to the petition would allow the complainants to strengthen their case after it had already been filed.
This, they argued, undermines the requirement that impeachment complaints contain sufficient factual basis from the outset.
Through their intervention, the lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to determine whether these subpoena proceedings constitute a “grave abuse of discretion.”
Stopping abuse SC’s function
“The duty of the Supreme Court [is] to arrest grave abuse before a constitutionally defective process hardens into precedent,” the group said.
The intervenors also maintained that their participation was both procedural and necessary despite not being parties to the original case.
They cautioned that if subpoenas can be used to fill gaps in complaints, the impeachment process itself could be reshaped into one driven by post-filing evidence-gathering rather than by established charges.
At stake, they said, is the integrity of constitutional processes.
“After all, the Constitution must govern impeachment, not the other way around,” they said.
A House member, however, questioned Duterte’s unwillingness to participate in the impeachment proceedings against her, echoing a sentiment that he said was shared by fellow panel members.
“We’ve been saying it for a long time, ‘Why not face the proceedings?’ If they are as confident as they claim regarding the Vice President’s innocence, then why don’t they face the committee so we can get the process over with?” Akbayan Partylist Rep. Chel Diokno said in a radio interview.
Diokno remarked on a second petition filed by Duterte’s camp before the Supreme Court seeking the suspension of and a temporary restraining order on the ongoing impeachment hearings.
In response to the petitions, the High Court held back and ordered the House to respond to the plea within 10 days.
This development meant the committee could proceed with its scheduled hearing for next Tuesday, 14 April.
Diokno noted that the upcoming hearing would allow the justice panel to examine the evidence and testimony presented by various agencies and individuals to determine whether the complaints can be referred to plenary.
“The door of the Committee on Justice is still open if they want to attend, but of course that is up to them,” Diokno said on Duterte’s participation.
No barrier to showing evidence
“If they decide not to participate, that’s up to them. It will not serve as a barrier to the presentation of evidence on Tuesday,” he added.
Diokno also sought to dismiss the claims of Duterte and her supporters that the committee was conducting a “fishing expedition” and that it was going beyond its duty by gathering evidence.
“The committee is not looking for anything new; it’s solely based on what is alleged in the complaint. What we want is to be sure that there is evidence, we see it, we can evaluate it so that we can finish our job,” he explained.
Asked how long he thought the hearings would last, the solon claimed that the remaining three scheduled dates this April would be enough time for the committee to vote on the sufficiency of the complaints.
Based on the recent issuance of subpoenas by the House, key witnesses Atty. Michael Wesley Poa and Ramil Madriaga have been called to testify on their knowledge of the alleged misuse of the Vice President’s confidential funds.
Meanwhile, agencies such as the Office of the Ombudsman, the National Bureau of Investigation, and the Securities and Exchange Commission were asked to present documents on the allegations against Duterte.