VICE President Sara Duterte on Thursday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to stop her prosecution on three counts of grave threats, arguing that an impeachable official cannot be criminally prosecuted while still in office.
In a 28-page petition, Duterte, through her lawyers led by Paul Lawrence Lim, asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the proceedings and nullify the Department of Justice (DOJ) resolution that led to the filing of the charges before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The petition came after the trial court denied Duterte’s motion to quash the charges and subsequently issued a warrant for her arrest.
Duterte argued that the Constitution and jurisprudence grant impeachable officials ‘limited procedural immunity’ from criminal prosecution while they remain in office.
She cited Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that the President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office through impeachment and conviction for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
Duterte argued that the constitutional framework establishes ‘a sequential order of accountability’ for impeachable officials-impeachment and removal first, followed by criminal prosecution if warranted.
‘The Vice President’s criminal prosecution illegally seeks to do indirectly what cannot be done directly, which is her removal from office outside of an impeachment conviction,’ Duterte said in her petition.
She argued that allowing the DOJ to prosecute her while she remains Vice President would make impeachment a redundant or optional process.
Duterte also claimed that her prosecution violates the separation of powers by allowing the Executive branch, through the DOJ, to interfere with the constitutional prerogatives of Congress over impeachment.
‘If allowed, any impeachable officer may be subjected to prior or parallel criminal proceedings, effectively placing the official under continuous legal siege and rendering the office vulnerable to prosecutorial pressure, and the shifting motive behind them,’ the petition said.
‘The impeachment mechanism would thereby cease to be the exclusive means of removal, and become vulnerable to circumvention through ordinary criminal prosecution,’ it added.
Duterte named Justice Secretary Fredderick Vida, Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon and the National Bureau of Investigation-Cybercrime Division as respondents.
The case stemmed from Duterte’s November 2024 online press briefing, during which she said she had instructed someone to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez if an alleged plot against her life succeeded.
The DOJ subsequently found prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction and filed three counts of grave threats against Duterte before the Quezon City RTC.
Duterte earlier sought the dismissal of the charges, arguing that the Constitution bars the criminal prosecution of impeachable officers while they are in office because such proceedings could interfere with the performance of their official duties.
After hearing the parties’ arguments, the trial court denied Duterte’s motion to quash and subsequently issued a warrant for her arrest.