MANILA — A Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) has dismissed the petition filed by lawyer Manases Carpio seeking to stop the ongoing impeachment proceedings against his wife, Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a report, it said that in a five-page order dated May 6, Quezon City RTC Branch 81 ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the case and rejected Carpio’s request for a writ of preliminary injunction against House Speaker Faustino Dy III, House Committee on Justice Chair Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, and Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Charlito Martin Mendoza.

The court, through Presiding Judge Madonna Echiverri, dismissed the petition for prohibition and denied the request for injunctive relief.

“The petition for prohibition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is DENIED,” the ruling stated, a copy of which was received by the House of Representatives.

Carpio’s petition sought to halt the House justice panel from issuing subpoenas and continuing actions related to impeachment complaints against Duterte, including the procurement of tax records and other documents linked to the Vice President and her husband.

The RTC, however, said the House was acting within its constitutional mandate.

“Respondents do not usurp but are in fact, as members of House committee on justice are, by law, constituted to determine the sufficiency of the impeachment complaint against the Vice-President and eventually the determination of probable cause for the filing of the case to the Senate,” the order read.

The court cited Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, stressing that the House of Representatives has the “exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.”

It also upheld the authority of the committee to issue subpoenas as part of its investigative functions.

“Thus, the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum is an inherent power of the Committee, which is validly created by law, to carry out this constitutional mandate effectively in the conduct of its hearing,” the RTC said.

The court further rejected Carpio’s claim that the House panel lacked jurisdiction over him or documents allegedly connected to him and the Vice President.

“Prohibition issues only against usurpers or those who exercise power which have not been vested by law,” it said.

The RTC also ruled that injunctions cannot be used to prevent Congress from performing its constitutional functions, noting that doing so would interfere with a co-equal branch of government.

“To enjoin the public individuals in the performance of their duty in the determination of the sufficiency of the impeachment complaint is to prevent said body to exercise its quasi-judicial or ministerial functions,” the order added.

The court also denied Carpio’s request for judicial notice of media reports and YouTube videos cited in his petition, saying these carried no evidentiary value.

“Newspaper articles amount to ‘hearsay evidence, twice removed’ and are therefore not only inadmissible but without any probative value at all whether objected to or not,” it said.

The RTC added that the proper venue for the petition would have been the Supreme Court, since the respondents were acting as part of a co-equal branch of government.

“In the case at bench, the respondents are acting in the official capacity as part of the HCOJ, a co-equal branch of the government hence, the case at bench should have been filed with the Supreme Court,” the order stated.