A fierce legal and political storm is brewing in the Philippines as a group of lawyers and officials from Mindanao, alongside supporters of Vice President Sara Duterte, have petitioned the Supreme Court to halt her impending impeachment trial in the Senate. The move, filed on Tuesday, has sparked intense debate over the legitimacy of the impeachment process, raising questions about constitutional compliance and political motivations in an already polarised landscape.
The 114-page petition, led by prominent Mindanao lawyers Israelito Torreon and Martin Delgra III, alongside Davao City councilor Luna Acosta, seeks a temporary restraining order to stop the Senate from proceeding with the trial. The petitioners argue that the impeachment complaint, endorsed by 215 House of Representatives lawmakers on 5 February, is “defective” and fails to meet constitutional standards. A conviction in the Senate would permanently bar Duterte, the daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte, from holding public office—a high-stakes outcome for her political future and her family’s enduring influence in Philippine politics.
A Question of Procedure and Intent
At the heart of the petitioners’ argument is the claim that the House of Representatives deliberately delayed action on three earlier impeachment complaints filed in December 2024, only to archive them and push through a fourth complaint in a rushed manner. They allege this was a calculated move to bypass the constitutional “one-year ban rule,” which prohibits multiple impeachment proceedings against the same official within a 12-month period. The petitioners describe the process as a “railroading” of justice, noting that the final complaint was transmitted to the Senate on the last day of Congress’s third regular session, with minimal time for deliberation. 
The petition further contends that the verification process for the impeachment articles was inadequate. According to the House Rules on Impeachment, a complaint must be accompanied by an affidavit from each endorsing lawmaker affirming the truth of the allegations based on personal knowledge or authentic records. The petitioners assert that no such affidavits were provided by the 215 House members, rendering the complaint legally void. They also highlight the brevity of the review process, calculating that each lawmaker had roughly 1.4 minutes to read and verify the document—an amount of time they deem “grossly insufficient” for meaningful scrutiny.
Beyond procedural flaws, the petitioners invoke a Supreme Court precedent from the case of Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003), which ruled that an impeachment complaint is considered initiated upon referral to the House Committee on Justice. Once initiated, any further complaints within the same year are barred to prevent harassment of public officials through repeated legal challenges. If the court accepts this interpretation, it could nullify the current impeachment process entirely.
Allegations and Political Backlash
The impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte includes serious charges, such as culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft, corruption, and betrayal of public trust. Among the most contentious accusations is the alleged misuse of approximately P612.5 million in confidential funds during her tenure as Vice President and, previously, as Secretary of the Department of Education. These funds, intended for sensitive government operations, have long been a lightning rod for criticism in Philippine politics, with detractors arguing they are prone to abuse due to limited transparency.
In response to the Supreme Court petition, lawmakers from the House of Representatives have dismissed the legal challenge as a desperate attempt to delay accountability. Ako Bicol Representative Raul Angelo Bongalon, one of the 11 House prosecutors in the impeachment trial, described the move as either a “publicity stunt” or evidence of “panic” within Duterte’s camp. He insisted that the impeachment process adhered to constitutional requirements, having been endorsed by more than a third of the House and properly verified with recorded votes.
Bongalon accused Duterte’s supporters of employing delaying tactics to prevent the Senate from convening as an impeachment court, where evidence against her would be publicly scrutinised. “In their utter desperation, the Vice President’s camp is throwing the proverbial kitchen sink to stop the inevitable,” he told reporters on Tuesday, challenging them to “stop these stunts and face us in trial.”
Similarly, lawmakers from the progressive Makabayan bloc, including France Castro of ACT Teachers, labelled the petition a “last-ditch effort” to evade scrutiny over the controversial confidential funds. “This is nothing but a desperate legal move meant to obstruct justice,” Castro said in a statement, underscoring the public’s demand for transparency regarding the expenditure of taxpayer money.
Competing Legal Pressures
Adding to the complexity, a separate petition filed on 14 February by lawyer Catalino Generillo Jr., a former special counsel for the Presidential Commission on Good Government, urges the Supreme Court to compel the Senate to “immediately” constitute itself as an impeachment court and begin Duterte’s trial. Generillo argues that the Constitution does not permit the Senate to delay proceedings during recess, pressing for a writ of mandamus to ensure swift action. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court directed the Senate to respond to this petition within 10 days, signaling that the judiciary may soon play a decisive role in shaping the trajectory of the impeachment.
The question of whether the Supreme Court can intervene in impeachment proceedings remains contentious. As Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting clarified to reporters, the court’s role is generally limited to assessing whether the process adheres to constitutional standards and whether there has been any “grave abuse of discretion” by the Senate. Impeachment, as Bongalon noted, is primarily a political exercise, distinct from the judiciary’s typical jurisdiction over legal disputes. Yet, with competing petitions now before the court—one seeking to halt the trial and another to expedite it—the judiciary finds itself at the centre of a deeply political conflict.
The Duterte Legacy and Political Implications
The impeachment trial of Sara Duterte carries significant implications beyond her personal fate. As the daughter of Rodrigo Duterte, whose presidency from 2016 to 2022 was marked by a controversial “war on drugs” and a strongman style of governance, Sara represents a continuation of the Duterte family’s political dynasty, particularly in their stronghold of Davao City. Many of the petitioners, including Davao City Vice Mayor J. Melchor Quitain Jr. and numerous councilors, reflect this regional loyalty, though Torreon was quick to clarify that the Vice President herself had no direct involvement in the Supreme Court filing.
The involvement of figures like Torreon, who serves as legal counsel to Apollo Quiboloy—a detained televangelist and close ally of the Duterte family—further underscores the interconnected web of personal and political alliances surrounding the case. Quiboloy, leader of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ sect, faces his own legal battles, including charges of human trafficking in the United States, and his association with the Dutertes has long drawn scrutiny.
If the impeachment trial proceeds and results in a conviction, it could deal a severe blow to the Duterte family’s influence, potentially reshaping the political landscape ahead of future elections. Conversely, a successful legal challenge to halt the trial could embolden Duterte’s supporters, reinforcing perceptions of impunity among powerful political clans. The timing of the impeachment, unfolding in an election year, only heightens the stakes, with critics alleging that the process is being weaponised for political gain.
A Test for Philippine Democracy
The unfolding saga of Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial is more than a personal or familial drama; it is a test of the Philippines’ democratic institutions. The interplay between the House, Senate, and Supreme Court highlights the delicate balance of power enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, drafted in the aftermath of Ferdinand Marcos’s authoritarian regime to prevent the concentration of authority in any single branch of government. Impeachment, as a mechanism to hold high-ranking officials accountable, is a cornerstone of this framework, but its application remains fraught with political tension.
Public sentiment, too, is divided. While some Filipinos view the impeachment as a necessary step toward transparency—particularly concerning the use of confidential funds—others see it as a targeted attack on a popular figure whose family has maintained significant grassroots support, especially in Mindanao. The outcome of the Supreme Court petitions could either reinforce public trust in the judiciary as a neutral arbiter or deepen cynicism about the politicisation of legal processes.
Looking Ahead
As the Supreme Court deliberates on the competing petitions, all eyes are on the Senate, which holds the ultimate power to try and convict Duterte. The chamber’s response to the court’s directive on Generillo’s petition will be a critical indicator of whether the trial proceeds promptly or faces further delays. Meanwhile, the allegations of procedural irregularities raised by Torreon and his co-petitioners, if substantiated, could set a precedent for future impeachment cases, shaping how such proceedings are initiated and challenged.
For now, the legal battle over Sara Duterte’s fate remains unresolved, with profound implications for her political career, the Duterte dynasty, and the broader trajectory of Philippine governance. What is clear is that this high-profile case will continue to dominate headlines, testing the resilience of the country’s democratic checks and balances in an era of intense polarisation.
