The petitioners contesting the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte have returned to the Supreme Court of the Philippines, raising concerns over what they described as a deeply irregular hearing before the House of Representatives of the Philippines held on April 14.
In a Manifestation with Prayer filed under GR No. E-05546 shared to the media, the petitioners led by Israelito P. Torreon, Resci Rizada-Nolasco, and Jimmy Bondoc argued that the House Committee on Justice structured the hearing around the testimony of Ramil Madriaga and his supplemental affidavit, despite the document not being part of the original impeachment complaints as filed and referred.
Madriaga is a jailed suspected leader of a kidnap-for-ransom group who claimed he was a former aide to the Dutertes.
“The proceedings were anchored on material that was never formally included in the complaint,” Torreon said.
Torreon stressed that only Madriaga’s earlier affidavit dated November 29, 2025, is part of the original records.
“What was presented introduced entirely new accusations and narratives beyond what respondents were notified of,” he said.
According to the petitioners, lawmakers questioned Madriaga as if the contents of the supplemental affidavit had long been part of the official record.
“This was not a mere clarification. It was an improper expansion of the factual basis of the case, violating fundamental requirements of notice, fairness, and due process,” Torreon said.
The group also challenged the committee’s issuance of a subpoena for former senator Antonio Trillanes IV.
They argued that it was based solely on a footnote in the Saballa complaint referencing a 2016 news article.
“A media report is not a sworn statement nor competent proof of the allegations it recounts,” Torreon said.
The petitioners also objected to a directive requiring the Anti-Money Laundering Council to produce documents on alleged transactions involving Duterte and lawyer Manases Carpio from 2006 to 2025. Carpio is the husband of Vice President Sara Duterte.
“There is no specific allegation of ultimate fact to justify such a sweeping order. What we are seeing is a broad attempt to search for evidence outside the four corners of the complaint,” Torreon said.
He added that the committee’s actions risk bypassing safeguards under the Anti-Money Laundering Act and bank secrecy laws.
“A legislative directive cannot simply override statutory protections designed to prevent fishing expeditions,” he said.
The petitioners argued that the April 14 proceedings departed from a disciplined review of the complaint’s sufficiency.
“It has ceased to be a threshold evaluation. Instead, it has become a fishing expedition for new material, new narratives, and new accusations to prop up what is, at its core, a constitutionally deficient case,” Torreon said.
