Sara Duterte impeachment trial proceeds sans TRO, says Gatchalian

MANILA, Philippines—Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial will continue because the Supreme Court did not issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the proceedings, according to Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian.

The request for a TRO was contained in a “Very Urgent Manifestation with Motion” filed by a group of lawyers as the trial against Duterte began in the Senate on Monday.

“I can’t discuss the merits of the case because it’s already before the court. But I’ve read their petition. They sought a status quo ante order and a temporary restraining order (TRO), which the Supreme Court did not grant,” Gatchalian said in Filipino when asked about the filing over DZMM on Thursday.

Article continues after this advertisement

“So since those were not granted, the impeachment proceedings will continue,” she added.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Asked if the petition affected the proceedings at all, the Senate chief answered in the negative.

“We are not affected because if the Supreme Court believed that this would cause irreparable damage—meaning that if this continued, things could no longer be restored to their previous state—it would have issued a status quo ante order or a temporary restraining order,” Gatchalian said in Filipino.

“But it did not issue either. That means the Supreme Court does not see any serious harm happening,” he added.

One of the petitioners was lawyer Israelito Torreon, who is identified with the vice president. However, her defense counsel, Michael Poa, said they were unaware of the group’s plan to raise the issue before the SC.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Sara Duterte’s defense team did not know about Torreon-led SC petition

In their petition, the lawyers particularly questioned the election of Sen. Francis Escudero as the presiding officer of the impeachment court, noting that only the Senate president can preside over other impeachment trials, except in the case of the president of the Philippines.

Article continues after this advertisement

“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,” the petitioners said.

Only 12 of 24 senators were present when the Senate amended the impeachment rules on June 3.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The validity of the June 3 session was the subject of a separate motion lodged at the SC by the Senate minority led by Sen. Alan Cayetano. /mcm