MANILA – A group of lawyers has petitioned the Supreme Court of the Philippines to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the House of Representatives of the Philippines from proceeding with impeachment complaints against Sara Duterte.

In a 186-page petition, the lawyers urged the high court to rule that the House Committee on Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the third and fourth impeachment complaints to proceed, claiming these lacked sufficiency in form and substance.

They also asked the court to declare that both complaints should have been dismissed outright due to these alleged deficiencies.

“[T]his petition is not about placing Vice President Sara Duterte on accountability. It is about ensuring that accountability remains constitutional. Impeachment is a grave constitutional process. It is not a political free-for-all process,” petitioner and lawyer Israelito Torreon said in a press conference.

The petition was filed by Torreon along with lawyers Vic Rodriguez, Rescie Angelli Rizada-Nolasco, Martin Delgra III, Wendel Avisado, James Patrick Bondoc, Raul Lambino, Luna Maria Acosta-Manlitoc, Jesus Hinlo Jr., and Dr. Richard Mata.

Named respondents include the House Committee on Justice, represented by its chairperson Gerville Luistro, and the House of Representatives, represented by Speaker Faustino Dy III.

Luistro, for her part, said the petition does not prevent the House from carrying out its constitutional mandate to initiate impeachment cases.

“We have not yet received nor reviewed the actual petition, but as with any legal pleading, we will study it carefully once it is formally served, and we will respond. [But] the filing of a petition, by itself, does not suspend the constitutional functions of a co-equal branch,” Luistro said in a statement.

“Accordingly, unless and until directed otherwise by the Supreme Court, the House will continue to perform its mandate,” she added.

She emphasized that impeachment proceedings are grounded in the Constitution, which grants the House the sole authority to initiate such cases.

“The Constitution is equally clear in vesting upon the House of Representatives the sole power to initiate impeachment cases. This is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and one we are duty-bound to carry out faithfully,” Luistro said.

“The ongoing proceedings in the House Committee on Justice are part of this constitutional process. They are designed to determine whether probable cause exists—not to determine guilt, and not to conduct a trial. That function belongs to the Senate,” she added.

Torreon, meanwhile, argued that the House panel allowed the third and fourth complaints to proceed despite alleged defects.

“The same representative who endorsed the second impeachment complaint was the same representative who endorsed the third impeachment complaint,” he said.

“Moreover, the same accusations were serially repackaged, and the third complaint was publicly described as an ‘improved version’ of an earlier complaint,” he added.

He said this indicated a “rolling and tactical filing process” in the endorsement of complaints.

Torreon also accused the committee of applying double standards, comparing its handling of complaints against Duterte with those filed against Ferdinand Marcos Jr..

“When it came to Vice President Sara Duterte, the Committee suddenly became permissive. Complaints that were conclusion-driven, duplicative, hearsay-laden, and openly investigative in character were allowed to proceed,” he said.

The petitioners also questioned the validity of subpoenas issued by the House panel, claiming they were overly broad.

“This is why we say, without exaggeration, that the March 25 proceedings became a fishing expedition. Threshold review is not a license for a fishing expedition,” Torreon said.

He added that the subpoenas sought documents such as Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth dating back to 2007, including those involving corporations not mentioned in the complaints.

“This shows that the committee is not proving a specific discrepancy; it was… broadly searching for one,” Torreon said.

“The committee here is not actually investigating. It is conducting a clear fishing expedition, which is not sanctioned under the 1987 Constitution or in the rules of the House of Representatives,” he added.

The House panel had earlier set aside the first impeachment complaint against Duterte for violating the one-year ban rule, while the second complaint was withdrawn by its complainant.