Ginpasaka ni Vice President Sara Duterte sa Korte Suprema ang petisyon para nga ipa-untat ang impeachment proceedings batok sa iya sa House Committee on Justice.
Ang gin-file sang vice president amo ang petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
Nahatagan man sang kopya sang 58 ka pahina nga dokumento ang justice panel.
Ini nga petisyon ang pirmado sang 11 ka mga abogado sang bise-presidente.
“This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to declare as void ab initio the impeachment complaints against the petitioner and committee proceedings arising therefrom, including any and all incidents relative thereto,” kabahin sang nakasulat sa dokumento.
Nagpagwa naman gilayon sang statement si Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon, myembro sang Justice Committee, kun sa diin gintawag sini nga
“misrepresentation of facts” kag “distorted interpretation” sang Konstitusyon kag prevailing jurisprudence ang pag-file sang amo nga petisyon.
Klaro suno kay Ridon nga nagatuyo lamang ini nga patalangon ukon i-mislead ang Supreme Court kag ang mga Pilipino.
Ginkontra man ni Ridon ang mga punto nga nakabutang sa petisyon.
“First, it is untrue that the impeachment complaints were not referred by the plenary of the House,” suno sa iya.
“The official video footage of the Feb. 23, 2026 plenary session, at 3:48 PM, clearly shows that the referral of the four impeachment complaints was carried out by the House of Representatives in plenary, in accordance with Section 3(2), Article XI of the Constitution. This was not merely an act of the Speaker or the Committee on Rules. It was an act of the House sitting as a collective body,” pahayag sini.
Nagdugang man ang kongresista nga wala sang legal requirement para sa prior deliberation antes ang referral sa justice committee nga amo ang nag-trigger sang “initiation” sang complaints.
“There is no provision in the 1987 Constitution, the House Rules on Impeachment, or Gutierrez v. House of Representatives that mandates deliberation prior to referral,” dugang sini.
“At most, Gutierrez states that deliberation may take place—it is not a mandatory requirement. More importantly, during that plenary session, no member of the House moved to object to the referral or to initiate deliberation—not even allies, relatives, or close associates of the Vice President.”
Sa iya ikatatlo nga punto, nagpahayag si Ridon, “Third, there is no violation of the one-year bar.”
“Public records clearly show that only one referral of the impeachment complaints to the House Committee on Justice took place, notwithstanding the setting aside of the Castro complaint and the withdrawal of the Dee complaint,” pahayag sini nga nagatumod sa duha ka complaints nga wala na nagpadayon sa justice panel.
“Fourth,” dugang pa niya, “There is no violation of due process.”
“The authority of the House Committee on Justice to conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, and gather evidence is firmly grounded in the Constitution, the House Rules on Impeachment, and established jurisprudence, including Duterte v. House. The Constitution does not require that all evidence be attached at the time of filing. The hearing process itself exists precisely to uncover the truth.”
Nahibaluan nga sa Martes, Abril 14, ang hearing sang House Justice Committee kaangot sa impeachment kag pagasundan sa Abril 22 kag 29.#
