The House Committee on Justice, led by Batangas 2nd District Representative Gerville Luistro, announced a motu proprio inquiry into the United States’ extradition request for controversial pastor Apollo Quiboloy. The investigation seeks to clarify perceived "insufficiencies and ambiguities" in the extradition process, lawmakers revealed.

This move followed a formal appeal from Akbayan Party-list Representative Perci Cendaña, who urged the committee to hold a legislative inquiry into Quiboloy’s case. During the committee's organizational meeting, Luistro read Cendaña’s letter expressing the necessity for Congress to provide transparency on how extradition requests are handled, stating, "There is an overwhelming public interest and concern over the process by which extradition requests are received, evaluated, and acted upon. It is imperative that Congress, through your Committee, provide a forum where concerned agencies may clarify the status of the present request, explain the legal and procedural steps involved, and identify any gaps or ambiguities in our existing laws and treaties."

Committee Vice Chairman Jonathan Keith Flores formalized the motion to investigate, which Luistro endorsed after no objections were raised.

Luistro highlighted two principal laws for review: the 1994 extradition treaty between the Philippines and the US, and the Philippine Extradition Law (Presidential Decree 1069) from 1977. She noted these laws lack clarity on several critical points.

"There are questions which answers could not be found in both laws," Luistro remarked.

Among the issues discussed were whether a foreign country can initiate extradition if the individual has ongoing cases in the Philippines, and the specific timelines between the Department of Foreign Affairs' (DFA) request and transmittal to the Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as the DOJ’s filing of the petition with the appropriate regional trial court.

Additional discussion focused on which court has jurisdiction over the extradition request—whether it should be the court handling local cases or the court corresponding to the individual’s residence, as indicated in the treaty or PD 1069.

Vice Chairman Flores pointed out that existing laws lack provisions on who has the authority to decide between temporary and deferred surrender of the person subject to extradition.

Regarding Quiboloy, Luistro emphasized in an interview that the inquiry is procedural and not a presumption of guilt. "This is not about prejudging anyone’s guilt. It is about upholding the rule of law, honoring our treaty commitments, and ensuring that victims see swift, fair, and transparent action," she said.

Luistro added, "Our message is simple: no one is above the law. We will ask the DOJ and DFA to walk the public through the precise legal options—temporary or deferred surrender—and the concrete timeline so justice is neither delayed nor denied."