Lawyers ask PH Supreme Court to stop VP Sara Duterte impeachment trial

A group led by lawyer Israelito Torreon has asked the Supreme Court to suspend the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, arguing that the legality of the Senate proceedings and the authority of presiding officer Senator Francis Escudero remain unresolved.

In an urgent manifestation with a motion filed Monday, July 6, the petitioners sought a status quo ante order (SQAO) or any appropriate interim relief that would prevent the Senate sitting as an impeachment court from proceeding with the trial.

The group noted that the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the consolidated petitions filed in March and April that seek to stop Duterte's impeachment proceedings.

“Pending such resolution, petitioners further respectfully pray for appropriate interim relief to preserve the constitutional integrity of the impeachment proceedings and to prevent the trial from proceeding under a presiding officer whose authority remains under serious and unresolved constitutional challenge,” they said.

The petition centers on the Senate's amendment to its impeachment rules, particularly the provision allowing senators to elect a presiding officer in impeachment trials involving officials other than the President.

According to the petitioners, the Constitution provides that the Chief Justice presides only over the impeachment trial of a President, while the Senate President should preside over all other impeachment proceedings, including those involving a Vice President.

They also challenged the validity of the Senate's June 3 proceedings, arguing that there was no quorum when senators approved the rule amendments, elected an acting Senate president, and designated new committee chairpersons.

“The officer presiding over the impeachment trial derives his claim of authority from the very June 3, 2026, proceedings whose validity is now pending before this Honorable Court,” the petitioners said.

They added, “If those proceedings are void, then the authority of the presiding officer is necessarily placed under grave constitutional doubt.”

Paraluman News