The Manila Times
MANILA, Philippines — Petitioners who have filed a case before the Supreme Court challenging aspects of the impeachment process against Vice President Sara Duterte raised concerns over the hearing at the House of Representatives on April 22, 2026, saying the proceedings went beyond the original impeachment complaints. In a statement, the petitioners, led by lawyer Israelito Torreon, said what transpired during the justice committee hearing “confirmed” their position before the Supreme Court that the committee had considered materials not originally attached to the impeachment complaints, including post-filing affidavits, Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC)-related documents, and corporate and tax records of entities not cited in the complaints. They described this as a “continuing post-filing expansion” of the case, arguing that impeachment proceedings should remain limited to the allegations and supporting documents as originally filed. The petitioners raised particular concern over the use of SALNs which, they said, were not part of the impeachment complaints and covered periods when Duterte was not yet vice president. They also questioned the presentation of AMLC-related materials covering transactions over several years, including periods outside her current term. According to the group, impeachment should be confined to acts or omissions committed during the current term of an impeachable official and should not be used to examine previous public positions or unrelated periods. They further criticized the alleged failure to provide the AMLC-related report to the respondent prior to the hearing, saying this deprived her of the opportunity to properly examine and respond. The petitioners also took issue with the public discussion of AMLC-related findings during the hearing, stressing that such reports were not proof of wrongdoing but only investigative leads that required proper validation and a clear financial trail. “An AMLC report is not a conviction,” the statement read, adding that references to large sums and broad timelines without substantiated links risked turning the proceedings into what they described as “theater.” They likewise objected to the presentation of corporate records, including General Information Sheets and tax-related documents of entities they said were not mentioned in any verified impeachment complaint, arguing that the committee was acting beyond its mandate by considering materials not originally pleaded. The group also raised concerns over the testimony of former senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who reportedly submitted an affidavit dated April 21, 2026. They said the affidavit and its contents, including allegations of alleged financial links involving former president Rodrigo Duterte and Vice President Duterte, were not part of the impeachment complaints or their attachments. The petitioners argued that introducing such material during the hearing amounted to a “post-filing evidentiary expansion” and deprived the respondent of proper notice and opportunity to respond. They also questioned the inclusion of allegations linking businessman Sammy Uy, describing parts of the narrative as “inherently implausible” and unsupported by clear factual basis. The statement further warned against what it called attempts to draw associations involving members of the Duterte family without properly pleaded allegations or supporting evidence, saying such approaches risked turning the proceedings into reputational attacks rather than constitutional accountability. The petitioners maintained that impeachment proceedings must be limited to the ultimate facts and supporting materials contained in the complaints, and that introducing new affidavits, documents, or theories during hearings violates constitutional due process requirements. Citing these developments, they reiterated their call for the Supreme Court to issue injunctive relief to restrain what they described as the continued expansion of the proceedings beyond the impeachment complaints. They said the Court’s intervention was necessary to ensure adherence to constitutional limits, due process, and fairness in impeachment proceedings.
Go to News Site