A group of nine lawyers, led by Atty. Israelito Torreon, has filed a Very Urgent Manifestation with Motion before the Supreme Court, seeking to challenge the legality of the appointment of Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero as the Presiding Officer of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
In their 16-page petition, the lawyers asked the High Court to issue either a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Status Quo Ante Order to temporarily suspend the ongoing impeachment proceedings while the Court examines the legality of the Senate’s recently adopted amendments to its Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials.
The petitioners argued that the amendments approved on June 3 are constitutionally defective, claiming they were passed without the required quorum and in violation of the prescribed procedure for amending the impeachment rules. They further contended that the Senate failed to comply with the mandatory one-day notice requirement for proposed amendments and that the revisions were approved by the Senate acting as a legislative body rather than as a duly constituted impeachment court.
The lawyers also questioned the validity of Senate Resolution No. 430, authored by Senator Ronald “Migz” Zubiri, which allows the Senate, by majority vote, to elect a senator to serve as presiding officer during an impeachment trial. According to the petition, the Constitution explicitly provides that the Senate President shall preside over impeachment trials, except when the President of the Philippines is the respondent, in which case the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the presiding officer.
The petition further argues that if the official presiding over the impeachment proceedings is ultimately found to lack constitutional authority, the legitimacy of the entire trial could be called into question. This could potentially affect the validity of all orders issued, evidence admitted, hearings conducted, and any final judgment rendered by the impeachment court.
As of this writing, the Supreme Court has not yet issued a ruling on the motion. The Senate and other concerned parties are expected to submit their respective responses as legal proceedings continue.
