Group asks SC to void Escudero’s authority to preside over trial

MANILA, Philippines — Israelito Torreon and eight other lawyers allied with the Dutertes have questioned before the Supreme Court the authority of Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero to preside over the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

In their 16-page Very Urgent Manifestation with Motion, Torreon and the group of lawyers urged the high tribunal to issue a temporary restraining order or a status quo ante order against the impeachment trial of Duterte, arguing that electing Escudero as presiding officer risks the validity of the proceedings.

They pointed out that the amendment to the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, adopted during a session on June 3, whose 12-member quorum is also being challenged, is “void.”

READ: Lawyers seek to stop impeachment hearings vs Sara Duterte

READ: Sara Duterte impeachment trial: Chiz elected presiding officer

They argued that only the Senate president can preside over impeachment trials, with the exception of when the president is on trial, which shall be presided over by the chief justice.

“The officer presiding over the impeachment derives his claimed authority from the very June 3, 2026, proceedings whose validity is now pending before this honorable court. If those proceedings are void, then the authority of the presiding officer is necessarily placed under grave constitutional doubt,” they said in the manifestation filed on Monday, but made public only on Tuesday.

In the June 3 session, Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri introduced Resolution No. 430, which seeks to amend the Rule II of the Rules of Procedure to allow the election of another senator, instead of the Senate President, to preside over an impeachment trial by a vote of the majority. This was adopted by the chamber on the same day.

According to the manifestation, the change in the rules did not comply with the proper requirements or processes, including the need for a one-day notice rule for any amendment, and that the changes were adopted by the Senate as a legislative body, and not as an impeachment court.

READ: Evacuations ordered in preparation for Bavi

“An ordinary legislative proceeding cannot, by midstream amendment, alter the adjudicatory structure of an already constituted impeachment tribunal in a pending case, especially where the amendment affects the very officer who will preside over the trial,” the lawyers said.

This, they argued, puts the validity of the ongoing impeachment trial at stake.

“If the officer presiding lacks constitutional authority, the defect infects not only his title, but every ruling, order, evidentiary action and procedural determination made under his hand,” they noted.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.