Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano on Monday sought to uphold due process in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte as he pointed to a 2025 Supreme Court requirement limiting the scope of impeachment charges to acts allegedly committed during an impeachable officer’s current term.
He raised the point shortly before the Senate Impeachment Court granted the prosecution’s subpoena requests for Duterte’s bank and tax records from 2007 to 2025 during the trial on July 20, 2026.
Cayetano cited Paragraph 6 of the due process requirements outlined by the Supreme Court in Duterte v. House of Representatives, which struck down the 2025 impeachment complaint against Duterte.
“The basis of the charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer,” he said, quoting the Court.
House prosecutor Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno argued that the Supreme Court’s statement was made in passing and did not form part of the ratio decidendi, or the legal basis for its decision to strike down the 2025 impeachment complaint.
Diokno also distinguished the dismissed complaint, which was initiated through the signatures of at least one-third of all House members, from the present case, which went through the House committee process.
Cayetano, however, disagreed that due process safeguards apply differently based on how an impeachment complaint was initiated.
“I don’t think the Supreme Court would be illogical in saying this is the principle for due process in this mode, but not in this other mode,” he said.
The lawyer senator said public officials must be held accountable for wrongdoing throughout their government service. However, he said impeachment should cover acts committed during their current term as impeachable officers, while alleged offenses committed outside that period may be pursued before the regular courts.
Diokno further argued that no trial had begun when the Supreme Court issued its ruling, so its statements on how a trial should be conducted may serve as guidelines but are not binding judicial precedent.
Cayetano responded that the question concerned the very scope of the case, rather than how the trial should be conducted.
“If we don’t follow that, we’re in danger of having a trial that’s void ab initio (from the beginning),” he said.
The defense, for its part, agreed that impeachable offenses should be limited to acts committed during the respondent’s present term and should not cover earlier years.
Cayetano said the Impeachment Court must resolve the question because it could affect several decisions throughout the trial.
“It’s very important that we understand and come to our own conclusions because many many times during this trial, and in every decision we have to make, this question will be front and center,” he said.