DAVAO CITY, Philippines (APRIL 27) — A supplemental petition filed before the Supreme Court is raising fresh constitutional questions against the ongoing impeachment proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte, with petitioners arguing that the House of Representatives overstepped its authority by allowing hearings during its official recess.
Led by lawyer Israelito Torreon, the petitioners submitted a Supplemental Petition for Certiorari in connection with G.R. No. E-05546 and G.R. No. E-05667, introducing what they describe as an independent ground to halt the proceedings.
At the center of the challenge is House Resolution No. 892, which authorized the House Committee on Justice to continue impeachment hearings from March 21 to May 3, 2026, despite the chamber not being in plenary session.
The petitioners argue that this move runs contrary to the Constitution, echoing earlier positions raised by the Duterte camp that the impeachment process must strictly adhere to defined constitutional boundaries and cannot be expanded through internal House mechanisms.
They contend that the Committee on Justice committed grave abuse of discretion by proceeding with substantive actions during the recess, including receiving evidence, issuing subpoenas, compelling attendance, and building the evidentiary record.
“These are not merely procedural or administrative acts,” the petition in substance asserts, “but exercises of power that directly affect the rights of the respondent and the integrity of the impeachment process.”
The filing underscores that impeachment is a constitutional mechanism—not a routine legislative inquiry—and must follow the framework set under Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Citing prior jurisprudence, petitioners stressed that a “session day” refers specifically to a calendar day when the House is in plenary session, a definition they argue cannot be altered by resolution.
For the petitioners, House Resolution No. 892 effectively attempts to redefine constitutional timelines, allowing the House to treat recess days as functional session days—an interpretation they warn could erode institutional safeguards.
The supplemental petition also points to specific hearings held on March 25, April 14, April 22, and April 29, arguing that these proceedings were substantive and carried significant legal consequences, despite being held outside the regular session.
Reinforcing earlier arguments from the Duterte camp, the petition frames the issue not as resistance to accountability, but as a question of constitutional fidelity.
“Accountability must be pursued,” the petition emphasizes, “but only within the process clearly fixed by the Constitution.”
Petitioners further warned that allowing impeachment proceedings to continue during recess could effectively place control of constitutional timelines in the hands of the House, undermining the 60-session-day limit mandated for committee action under Article XI.
They maintain that even in cases involving serious allegations, adherence to constitutional procedure remains paramount.
“The House is not without power,” the petition argues, “but that power must be exercised strictly within constitutional limits—and in accordance with the Supreme Court’s own interpretations.”
The Supreme Court has yet to act on the supplemental filing.- Editha Z Caduaya
