The Supreme Court (SC) may still issue a preliminary injunction to halt the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, even if it does not immediately grant a temporary restraining order (TRO), a member of the defense panel in the impeachment of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona said.
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 the Court will not consider it at all? We cannot say that with finality,” Salvador said.
He explained that the SC’s directive for respondents, including the House of Representatives Committee on Justice, to submit their comments within 10 days, is part of standard procedure.
He said this requirement does not 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 said.
The petitions, filed by Duterte and a separate group of lawyers, challenged the constitutionality of the impeachment proceedings, particularly the actions of the House justice panel.
They argued that the committee exceeded its authority by engaging in broad evidence-gathering and violating due process safeguards.
The SC has consolidated the petitions and ordered the 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.”
He stressed, however, that any potential action by the High Court remains uncertain.
Anything is possible
“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 10 days did not mean the petitions had been given due course.
Meanwhile, Senator Imee Marcos urged her brother, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., to speak out against the “sickening lies” of Ramil Madriaga, who alleged that ex-President Rodrigo Duterte had arranged a supposed “term-sharing” deal between him and Vice President Sara Duterte ahead of the 2022 polls.
Senator Marcos said the President knows full well there was “no such thing” as a term-sharing deal, much less one facilitated by then President Duterte, who had long voiced his strong disapproval of the Bongbong-Sara tandem, or the UniTeam alliance, for the 2022 national elections.
She asserted that her brother’s silence, despite supposedly being fully aware of Madriaga’s testimony before the House of Representatives, only pointed to his involvement in the ongoing impeachment proceeding against VP Duterte.
“Bongbong, President Marcos, you know the truth. You were there, we were together. If you did not order this, there is no reason for you not to correct this lie,” Senator Marcos said in a briefing a day after Madriaga testified in the House.
“Do not tolerate these politicians who are using this liar Madriaga,” she added.
In his affidavit, Madriaga told the House panel hearing the impeachment complaints against VP Duterte that then President Duterte had informed him in November 2021 that the Marcos siblings had visited him and convinced him to have then Davao mayor Sara run for vice president alongside Bongbong.
Madriaga is a confessed former aide of the Dutertes. He is currently detained on kidnapping charges but was allowed to testify in the impeachment proceedings against VP Duterte.
During the meeting between the Dutertes and the Marcoses, Madriaga said the two sides agreed that if Bongbong won as president, he would step down by 2025 to give way to Sara.
Senator Marcos, however, rejected this as a brazen lie, citing a November 2021 news article that quoted Bongbong as dismissing the idea of a presidential term-sharing with Sara.
The opposition senator said Madriaga’s allegations did not add up because their initial plan was to convince Sara to run for president while Bongbong would be her running mate.
“We were pushing Sara to run for president, why would she even share [the term]?” she pointed out.
Another glaring example of Madriaga’s alleged false testimony, Imee added, was his claim that he was informed by then President Duterte one month later that Bongbong Marcos would run for president. However, it was already publicly known of his intent to seek the highest office when he filed his certificate of candidacy as early as October.
Aside from this, Senator Marcos faced the press, armed with a presentation that included screenshots of exchanges between her and VP Duterte, as well as photos from preparations for the 2022 polls, to debunk Madriaga’s allegations that the Dutertes had a hand in the so-called term-sharing, among other issues.
Digong not in the loop
“That’s the truth — not what Madriaga said that my brother and I went to PRRD to arrange a term-sharing deal. There was no such thing. PRRD didn’t know anything about it. That’s a lie,” she said.
She also doubled down on her tirades against her brother’s administration, with whom she had a falling out. She expressed regret that she had let herself be an “instrument” of a government whose leadership had caused the country’s “downfall” and plunged it into “corruption” and “greed.”
Despite this, she said she will remain impartial as a senator-judge should the impeachment case of VP Duterte reach the Senate for trial.
VP Duterte has long claimed that the impeachment proceedings against her were politically motivated, aimed at derailing her ambition to succeed her former ally-turned-foe, Marcos Jr.
She is facing complaints of graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, among others, under the verified impeachment complaint.
Malacañang has since denied President Marcos’ involvement in the VP’s impeachment case, despite their widely known bitter falling out.