MANILA, Philippines — Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, chairperson of the House Committee on Justice, clarified on Tuesday that while the committee is committed to avoiding unnecessary delays in the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, it will not skip any procedural steps required by due process.
The statement comes in response to House Resolution No. 894, filed by Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco, which urged the committee to “expedite” the process. Tiangco suggested holding hearings during the congressional break so that lawmakers could focus on the ongoing national energy emergency once sessions resume.
- Respondent’s Rights: Luistro noted that skipping steps would violate the Vice President’s right to due process, which includes the opportunity to challenge allegations and refute evidence.
- Current Stage: The panel is currently at the fourth of five steps in the House Rules—the formal hearing proper. This stage involves the presentation of evidence, witness testimonies, and the evaluation of counter-affidavits.
The formal hearing is scheduled to begin on Wednesday, March 25, 2026. Several critical motions are expected to be addressed:
- Evidence Preservation: Rep. Chel Diokno has filed a motion for document subpoenas and protective custody for key witnesses.
- Witnesses: The panel will consider calling two of Duterte’s lawyers as witnesses, a point raised by Rep. Terry Ridon.
- Respondent Attendance: As of Tuesday, there was no confirmation on whether Vice President Duterte would attend. Luistro clarified that if the Vice President is absent, her lawyers may only assist her; they cannot directly counter the claims on her behalf.
Originally, four impeachment complaints were filed. Currently, only two remain active under the committee’s jurisdiction:
- Complaint 1: Set aside due to the one-year bar rule.
- Complaint 2: Withdrawn by petitioners.
- Remaining Complaints: Declared “sufficient in form, substance, and grounds.” These involve allegations of misuse of confidential funds, bribery, and constitutional violations.
While Tiangco argued that the evidence is already “sufficient to impeach,” Luistro corrected this view, stating that the committee has not yet reached a final determination. The “sufficiency of evidence” can only be established after the formal hearing proper, where both sides are given the chance to present their case.