MANILA — Lawmakers sharply criticized Vice President Sara Duterte after she elevated her impeachment fight to the Supreme Court, with several House members calling the move a “desperate attempt” to derail proceedings and avoid accountability.

Among the most vocal critics was Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, who questioned Duterte’s decision to seek relief from the high court. “Akala siguro nila yung SC ay ‘Sara’s Court’ na pwede nila laging takbuhan para pagtakpan ang kaduwagan at pagtakas sa pananagutan,” De Lima said in a post.

Akbayan Rep. Percival Cendaña echoed the criticism, accusing Duterte of attempting to stall the process out of fear that evidence would surface. “This petition reeks of desperation. At alam natin kapag desperado, talagang gagawin ang lahat para ma-delay, ma-derail ‘yung process. And we hope that the Supreme Court will see that we are fully compliant with not just the constitution, but even with their own ruling,” said Cendaña.

“Alam natin na talagang desperado na sila, natatakot na lumabas ang ebidensya, natatakot na lumabas ang katotohanan. Kasi alam ni VP Sara, paglabas ng ebidensya, wala na siyang takas,” he added.

Adding to the criticism, ACT Teachers Party-list and Makabayan Bloc member Antonio Tinio dismissed the petition outright. “Kabalbalan ang petisyon ng kampo ni VP Sara,” Tinio said, describing the move as a clear tactic to evade accountability, particularly in relation to confidential funds and unexplained wealth of VP Duterte.

Meanwhile, Rep. Terry Ridon of Bicol Saro went further, urging the dismissal of Duterte’s petition outright. He alleged that her legal team included “fraudulent claims,” particularly in arguing that prosecutors are barred from strengthening a case with additional evidence—an assertion he rejected.

“No TRO vs Duterte impeachment proceedings. See you on April 14,” Ridon said on X.

Despite the petition from Duterte’s group, the Supreme Court declined to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO), allowing the impeachment process to proceed.

For House leadership, the decision affirmed institutional balance. Speaker Faustino Dy III welcomed the move, saying it reflects “proper balance” among branches of government. “In the absence of any legal restraint, the House of Representatives will continue to discharge its constitutional mandate,” Dy said, adding that proceedings would move forward in a “fair, orderly, and evidence-based process.”

Duterte filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition dated April 1, asking the Supreme Court to issue both a TRO and a final injunction to nullify the impeachment complaints and halt the proceedings of the House Committee on Justice.

Her legal team argued that the impeachment process is constitutionally flawed, citing what they described as “fatal defects” in how the complaints were referred and handled. Among the key points raised were alleged overreach by House leadership, possible violation of the one-year bar rule on impeachment, and claims that committee hearings resemble a “trial in disguise,” a role reserved for the Senate.

Defense spokesperson Michael Poa maintained that the move was grounded in constitutional principles. “This is about ensuring that the process itself complies with the Constitution. The House has the power to initiate impeachment, but that power is not without limits,” he said.

Nevertheless, the solons reiterated that the impeachment process is part of constitutional accountability mechanisms, guided by evidence and the rule of law, even as political tensions continue to mount.

📷 Inday Sara Duterte FB