Petitioners led by lawyer Israelito P. Torreon have asked the Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines to stop the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, citing what they described as unconstitutional actions by the House of Representatives during its legislative recess.
In a Supplemental Petition for Certiorari filed under G.R. No. E-05546 and G.R. No. E-05667 shared to the media, the petitioners raised an additional and independent ground to halt the proceedings, specifically assailing House Resolution No. 892.
The resolution allegedly authorized the House Committee on Justice to continue impeachment proceedings during the regular recess from March 21 to May 3, 2026, “with the same force and effect as if the House were in session.”
According to the petitioners, this move constituted grave abuse of discretion, as the committee conducted substantive impeachment activities despite the absence of plenary sessions.
“The House Committee on Justice committed grave abuse of discretion when it conducted substantive impeachment hearings, received evidence, entertained motions, acted on subpoenas, compelled attendance, and expanded the evidentiary record during a period when the House was not holding plenary sessions,” Torreon said.
The petition argued that impeachment is not a routine legislative inquiry that can proceed for convenience, but a constitutional process governed strictly by Article XI of the Constitution.
Torreon emphasized that jurisprudence has already clarified the meaning of a “session day” in impeachment proceedings.
“For purposes of impeachment, a ‘session day’ means a calendar day on which the House of Representatives holds a plenary session,” he said.
He added that this definition cannot be altered by internal resolutions.
The petitioners maintained that House Resolution No. 892 violated the Constitution by attempting to treat recess days as functional session days for impeachment work.
“This constitutional rule cannot be bypassed by a House resolution. Article XI ties impeachment proceedings to actual session days, not to recess days that the House may later convert into working impeachment days,” Torreon stressed.
The petitioners cited several hearings allegedly conducted during the recess on March 25, April 14, April 22, and April 29, 2026 arguing that these were not merely administrative but substantive proceedings that affected the rights of the vice president and expanded the evidentiary record.
“These were not ministerial acts. These were substantive proceedings that detached the impeachment process from plenary accountability,” Torreon said.
Despite their challenge, the petitioners clarified that they are not opposing accountability mechanisms but are insisting on strict adherence to constitutional procedures.
“Our position does not prevent constitutional accountability. It insists that accountability must be pursued only through the process fixed by the Constitution,” Torreon said.
Torreon warned that allowing impeachment activities during recess could undermine constitutional safeguards, particularly the 60-session-day timeline for committee action.
“Otherwise, the counting and application of the 60-session-day clock would be left to the discretion of the House, allowing constitutional timelines to shift depending on how recess days are treated. The House remains fully capable of performing its constitutional role but only if it acts strictly within the limits fixed by Article XI and within the authoritative construction already laid down by the Supreme Court,” Torreon said.
