MANILA, Philippines —The Supreme Court of the Philippines has directed the House of Representatives and its Committee on Justice to file comments within 10 days on petitions challenging the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, but it stopped short of issuing a temporary restraining order to halt the hearings.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the House of Representatives and its justice committee to respond to petitions questioning the constitutionality of the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. The directive came during the Court’s en banc session on April 8, 2026.

The petitions were filed separately by Duterte herself and a group of lawyers led by Israelito Torreon, Vic Rodriguez, Rescie Angelli Rizada-Nolasco, Martin Delgra III, Wendel Avisado, James Patrick Bondoc, Raul Lambino, Luna Maria Acosta-Manlitoc, Jesus Hinlo Jr., and Dr. Richar. Both petitions sought to stop the impeachment hearings, arguing that the process violated constitutional provisions.

In its resolution, the Supreme Court stated, “The SC consolidated these cases and, without necessarily giving due course to the petitions, directed respondents to comment within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of notice.”

The Court clarified that while the petitions were consolidated, this does not mean they have been granted or that the impeachment process has been suspended. The justices emphasized that the directive is procedural, requiring the House and its committee to formally address the issues raised before the Court can decide whether to act further.

Vice President Duterte’s petition, dated March 30 and received by the Court on April 1, also asked for a temporary restraining order to immediately halt the hearings. However, the Supreme Court did not issue a TRO, allowing the impeachment proceedings to continue while awaiting the House’s comments.

The impeachment complaint against Duterte has been one of the most closely watched political developments in recent months, with critics alleging abuse of power and supporters claiming the proceedings are politically motivated. The House Committee on Justice has been conducting hearings to determine whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance.

The Supreme Court’s move signals that it is taking the petitions seriously but remains cautious about intervening in an ongoing legislative process. Legal experts note that the Court’s decision to require comments first reflects its adherence to due process and separation of powers, ensuring that all parties are heard before any ruling is made.

As the House prepares its response, the impeachment hearings against Vice President Duterte continue, with the political climate in the Philippines expected to remain tense in the coming weeks. The Court’s eventual ruling could have significant implications not only for Duterte’s political future but also for the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature.