QC court junks plea to halt Sara impeachment

A Quezon City Regional Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by lawyer Manases Carpio seeking to halt the impeachment proceedings against his wife, Vice President Sara Duterte, ruling that the judiciary cannot interfere with the constitutional powers of the House of Representatives in impeachment cases.

In a five-page order dated May 6, Quezon City RTC Branch 81 also denied Carpio’s request for a writ of preliminary injunction against Speaker Faustino Dy III, House Committee on Justice chair Gerville Luistro and Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Charlito Martin Mendoza.

The ruling, penned by Presiding Judge Madonna Echiverri, dismissed the petition for prohibition for lack of jurisdiction.

“The petition for prohibition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is DENIED,” the court said.

Carpio sought to stop the House justice panel from enforcing subpoenas and pursuing actions connected to the impeachment complaints against Duterte, particularly after the committee requested tax records and other documents allegedly linked to the Vice President and her husband.

However, the RTC ruled that the House panel was exercising powers expressly granted under the Constitution and could not be restrained through injunction or prohibition.

“Respondents do not usurp but are, in fact, as members of HCOJ 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 stated.

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

The RTC also upheld the subpoena powers of the House Committee on Justice, saying such authority is inherent in carrying out impeachment proceedings.

“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 ruling added.

The court likewise rejected Carpio’s argument that the House panel had no jurisdiction over him or documents allegedly tied to him and the Vice President.

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

It further ruled that injunctions cannot be used to block lawmakers from performing constitutional duties.

“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 court stated.

The RTC also denied Carpio’s motion asking the court to take judicial notice of news reports and YouTube videos related to the House hearings.

“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,” the court said.

In its ruling, the RTC noted that the petition should have been filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines because the respondents were acting as officials 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.

The ruling came after the House Committee on Justice unanimously found probable cause to impeach Duterte and approved the Articles of Impeachment for plenary transmittal ahead of the expected House vote on May 11.