A group of petitioners led by lawyer Israelito P. Torreon has appealed to the Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines to suspend the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, alleging that the House of Representatives acted beyond its constitutional limits during its legislative recess.
In a Supplemental Petition for Certiorari filed under G.R. Nos. E-05546 and E-05667, the group introduced an additional argument challenging the validity of House Resolution No. 892.
The questioned resolution reportedly allowed the House Committee on Justice to proceed with impeachment-related activities during the congressional recess from March 21 to May 3, 2026, granting such actions the same authority as if Congress were in active session.
Torreon argued that this arrangement amounted to grave abuse of discretion, pointing out that the committee carried out significant impeachment functions despite the absence of formal plenary sessions.
He noted that during the recess, the committee conducted hearings, gathered evidence, ruled on motions, issued subpoenas, and compelled participation—actions he described as substantive rather than merely administrative.
According to the petition, impeachment is a constitutionally defined process under Article XI and cannot be treated like ordinary legislative inquiries that may proceed at the convenience of lawmakers.
Torreon emphasized that legal precedents have already clarified what constitutes a “session day” in the context of impeachment, defining it strictly as a day when the House holds an official plenary session.
He stressed that such a definition cannot be altered through internal resolutions, arguing that House Resolution No. 892 improperly attempted to equate recess days with session days for impeachment purposes.
The petitioners also pointed to specific dates—March 25, April 14, April 22, and April 29, 2026—when hearings were allegedly held during the recess, asserting that these sessions directly affected the vice president’s rights and expanded the evidentiary record.
“These actions were not merely procedural,” Torreon said, adding that they effectively removed the impeachment process from the oversight and accountability provided by plenary sessions.
Despite their challenge, the petitioners clarified that they are not opposing the principle of accountability but are calling for strict compliance with constitutional procedures.
Torreon warned that permitting impeachment proceedings during recess periods could weaken constitutional safeguards, particularly the mandated 60-session-day period for committee action.
He cautioned that if recess days are treated as session days, it could give the House undue flexibility in managing constitutional timelines.
“The House can fulfill its constitutional mandate,” Torreon said, “but only by operating strictly within the framework established by the Constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court.”
