NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
SC Receives 4th Petition Against Duterte Impeachment; No TRO Issued
Photo credit: Sara Duterte
A fourth petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines seeking to stop the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.
The 34-page petition, filed by lawyers Hue Jyro Go, Micah De Guzman, and Jake Leoncini, challenges the actions of the House of Representatives, particularly the House Committee on Justice, in handling the third and fourth impeachment complaints.
The lawyers argue that the House may have exceeded its constitutional authority by expanding the scope of the complaints through evidence and testimonies not included in the original filings. They said that once a complaint is declared sufficient in form and substance, it should be evaluated based solely on its contents.
According to the petition, the House panel issued broad subpoenas, required the submission of financial records covering several years, and involved individuals who were not named in the original complaints. It also questioned the admission of a supplemental affidavit from Ramil Madriaga, which allegedly introduced new allegations after the complaints had already been assessed.
The petition further cited the summoning of additional witnesses, including former senator Antonio Trillanes IV, to testify on matters not originally included in the complaints. The lawyers argued that these actions effectively transformed the proceedings into a fishing expedition and undermined the integrity of the impeachment process.
They also raised concerns over the request for multiple years of Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, describing it as excessive and not clearly relevant to the allegations.
The petitioners emphasized that their filing aims to uphold constitutional limits on impeachment proceedings and ensure due process is followed.
Despite multiple petitions challenging the impeachment, the Supreme Court has not issued a temporary restraining order to halt the proceedings. Instead, the high court has consolidated the petitions and directed the House to respond, allowing the process to continue for now.
The petitioners are asking the court to intervene, nullify what they described as defective proceedings, and clarify the limits of the House’s impeachment powers.
The 34-page petition, filed by lawyers Hue Jyro Go, Micah De Guzman, and Jake Leoncini, challenges the actions of the House of Representatives, particularly the House Committee on Justice, in handling the third and fourth impeachment complaints.
The lawyers argue that the House may have exceeded its constitutional authority by expanding the scope of the complaints through evidence and testimonies not included in the original filings. They said that once a complaint is declared sufficient in form and substance, it should be evaluated based solely on its contents.
According to the petition, the House panel issued broad subpoenas, required the submission of financial records covering several years, and involved individuals who were not named in the original complaints. It also questioned the admission of a supplemental affidavit from Ramil Madriaga, which allegedly introduced new allegations after the complaints had already been assessed.
The petition further cited the summoning of additional witnesses, including former senator Antonio Trillanes IV, to testify on matters not originally included in the complaints. The lawyers argued that these actions effectively transformed the proceedings into a fishing expedition and undermined the integrity of the impeachment process.
They also raised concerns over the request for multiple years of Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, describing it as excessive and not clearly relevant to the allegations.
The petitioners emphasized that their filing aims to uphold constitutional limits on impeachment proceedings and ensure due process is followed.
Despite multiple petitions challenging the impeachment, the Supreme Court has not issued a temporary restraining order to halt the proceedings. Instead, the high court has consolidated the petitions and directed the House to respond, allowing the process to continue for now.
The petitioners are asking the court to intervene, nullify what they described as defective proceedings, and clarify the limits of the House’s impeachment powers.
Apr 22, 2026
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
