The House of Representatives took its time. Now, the Senate wants to do the same.
After months of inaction on previous impeachment complaints, the House swiftly gathered more than the required one-third (215) of its members to endorse the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte.
The sheer speed at which the complaint gained signatures signals strong political will—or, perhaps, a carefully timed maneuver.
Either way, the verified complaint has been transmitted to the Senate, which, by constitutional mandate, must proceed with the trial “forthwith.”
Yet Senate President Francis Escudero insists that the trial will begin only after the State of the Nation Address in July, effectively pushing it under the jurisdiction of the 20th Congress. Such a delay raises serious constitutional and political concerns.
The Constitution is explicit. Article XI, Section 3(4) states that once the House transmits the articles of impeachment, the Senate shall “forthwith proceed” with the trial.
The term “forthwith” is not ambiguous. Legal experts, including former congressmen Rolex Suplico and Niel Tupas Jr., who have direct experience in impeachment proceedings, emphasize that “forthwith” means immediate action, not months of delay.
Why, then, is the Senate dragging its feet?
Escudero’s justification—that impeachment is not a matter warranting a special session—conveniently ignores the urgency mandated by the Constitution.
The Senate does not have the luxury of legislative recess when it comes to an impeachment trial. The precedent set by the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2012 saw immediate action from the Senate.
Delays only serve to undermine the integrity of the process and fuel suspicions of political maneuvering.
The Senate’s foot-dragging is particularly troubling given that three previous impeachment complaints filed in December 2024 were conspicuously left off the House calendar, creating an artificial time crunch that now serves as a convenient excuse for delay.
This temporal manipulation appears designed to run out the clock on the 19th Congress, potentially rendering the entire process moot when the legislative term ends on June 30.
Beyond legal arguments, the political ramifications of this impeachment case are enormous. A delayed trial benefits those who wish to avoid public scrutiny before the 2025 elections. Several senators are up for reelection, and their handling of this case will undoubtedly shape their political fortunes. On the other hand, a swift trial could bring clarity to a divisive issue that has gripped the nation. The public deserves to see due process, not a spectacle of delay and avoidance.
Moreover, the House’s sudden decisiveness in acting on this complaint begs the question: Why now? If the impeachment allegations have merit, why were previous complaints ignored? The three impeachment complaints filed in December 2024 never made it to the House’s order of business. Was this timing deliberate to ensure the complaint reaches the Senate just as Congress prepares for a break, effectively running the clock out?
For VP Duterte, this extended uncertainty could prove politically damaging regardless of the outcome, as public trust erodes in the face of unresolved allegations. Or if she spins it well, she could drop the victim card and gain public sympathy.
The senators seeking reelection must also weigh how their handling of this constitutional duty will impact their political futures, as voters increasingly demand accountability and respect for democratic institutions.
Filipinos are watching closely. This impeachment is not just about the fate of Sara Duterte; it is a test of the country’s democratic institutions. The Senate must honor its constitutional obligation and commence the trial immediately, allowing the process to conclude within the current Congress.
Anything less risks setting a dangerous precedent where political expedience trumps constitutional mandate, potentially weakening one of the few mechanisms available for holding high officials accountable to the people they serve.
If the Senate allows this case to be buried under procedural delays, it will set a dangerous precedent where accountability is dictated not by constitutional duty but by political convenience.
