VICE-PRESIDENT Sara Duterte-Carpio 鈥 OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

Legal practitioners supporting Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio on Friday asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the attempt to oust her through impeachment, as the House maintains the process complies with constitutional requirements and earlier rulings.

In a petition filed before the high court, the lawyers led by Israelito P. Torreon sought to halt the ongoing impeachment process, arguing that the House Committee on Justice committed grave abuse of discretion when it allowed multiple complaints against Ms. Duterte to proceed despite alleged defects. The petitioners also prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, saying the move was meant to ensure that constitutional limits are observed in the impeachment process.

鈥淭he core vice we challenge is simple but serious: the House Committee on Justice abandoned the strict threshold discipline required by the Constitution and by the House Rules on Impeachment,鈥 Mr. Torreon said during a news briefing held via teleconference.

鈥淚t allowed the third and fourth impeachment complaints to survive despite defects in form and substance, and then attempted to cure those defects through a subpoena-driven evidentiary process,鈥 he added.

On March 25, the committee authorized subpoenas for witnesses and documents tied to the impeachment complaints against Ms. Duterte, covering her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, her related tax filings, financial statements, and audit reports, as well as supporting affidavits, among others. This comes as the committee moves forward with impeachment complaints against Ms. Duterte, alleging misuse of confidential funds, threats against top officials, and other acts constituting betrayal of public trust and constitutional breaches 鈥 all which Ms. Duterte has consistently denied. At least 106 lawmakers must back the complaints for the case to proceed to a Senate trial.

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla said on Thursday his office is ready to provide Congress with all available SALNs of Ms. Duterte, citing the legality of the process.

Mr. Torreon said the subpoenas turned the proceedings into a 鈥渇ishing expedition,鈥 noting that the materials sought were not originally included in the complaints and that such a move is illegal.

鈥淵ou do not subpoena first and theorize later,鈥 Mr. Torreon said, adding that the Constitution requires impeachment complaints to already contain sufficient factual basis before any evidentiary process begins.

He also raised due process concerns, saying the respondent is entitled to answer a fixed complaint and not one that evolves through subsequent evidence-gathering. According to him, allowing complaints to proceed and then expanding them through subpoenas undermines fairness and constitutional safeguards.

The petitioners clarified they filed the case as 鈥渃itizens and taxpayers鈥 rather than as part of the Vice President鈥檚 official defense team.

The petition further alleged that the committee applied a 鈥渄ouble standard鈥 in handling impeachment complaints, citing how previous complaints against Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. were dismissed for lack of evidence, while those against Ms. Duterte were allowed to proceed despite what they described as similar deficiencies.

For its part, the House leadership rejected the allegations, insisting that the impeachment proceedings are being conducted in accordance with the Constitution and Supreme Court jurisprudence.

In a statement on Friday, Joel R. Chua, chair of the Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, said the supposed constitutional issues raised by Ms. Duterte鈥檚 lawyers are 鈥渕ere hallucinations.鈥 He added that the House deliberately adopted a method designed to avoid the legal pitfalls encountered in earlier impeachment attempts.

鈥淲e followed the due process guidelines the Supreme Court meticulously laid out in its two decisions on the previous Articles,鈥 Mr. Chua said. 鈥聽Erika Mae P. Sinaking