Forthwith, finally, forthwith

By Herman M. Lagon

A funny thing happens in Philippine politics when English gets involved: one word can suddenly acquire the flexibility of a rubber band and the stamina of a seasoned senator. Take “forthwith.” It is a term that sounds like it was borrowed from a British courtroom drama, dusted off, then dropped on our national timeline like a gavel meant to end arguments. And yet, here we are—still arguing. This week’s news gave “forthwith” a second life when Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III promised to act on any impeachment complaint “with dispatch, forthwith.” The word arrived not as a mere adverb, but as a wink to the country: yes, I know this word has been through a lot.

And everyone knows what the wink is about. When people say “impeachment” these days, the name that usually follows—whether whispered in coffee shops or argued in comment sections—is Vice President Sara Duterte. The one-year bar is nearing its end, and February is again being talked about as the month when Congress, newly opened, may legally entertain a fresh complaint if one is filed and transmitted. In other words, “forthwith” is not just vocabulary this time; it is a calendar word with a deadline.

Because “forthwith” in the local setting has recently become less of a time marker and more of a personality test. When former Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero was asked why the Senate did not promptly take up the impeachment matter, the public heard variations of “not that kind of forthwith,” as if the Constitution wrote “forthwith” the way Filipinos write “OTW” in group chats—on the way, but not necessarily arriving. Commentators pounced, critics piled on, and one could almost imagine a nation watching a man negotiate with an adverb. Many even noted that Sotto’s recent phrasing appeared to reference complications sparked by Escudero’s interpretation of “forthwith,” including the argument that if urgency was intended, the text should have used “immediately.” Meanwhile, the dictionary just sat there, unbothered, holding its one job like a teacher holding the class record: “forthwith” means “without any delay: immediately.”

To be fair, we have always had a complicated relationship with “immediately.” In many offices, “immediately” can mean “after lunch,” which can mean “after merienda,” which can mean “next week if nobody follows up.” That is not always laziness; sometimes it is the chaos of limited staff, crowded schedules, and a culture that survives by improvisation. But impeachment is not ordering printer ink. And it is not only about one person, either. The grapevine, as always, is noisy—some say the next complaint could again be aimed at the Vice President, while others insist the sitting President might also face an attempt, depending on which political winds decide to blow harder that week.

Impeachment sits in the Constitution under Accountability of Public Officers for a reason. Article XI, Section 3(4) does not say the Senate may proceed when it feels ready; it says trial “shall forthwith proceed” once a complaint is filed by at least one-third of House members. The word “shall” is not decorative. It is the Constitution’s way of clearing its throat.

This is why Sotto’s “forthwith” lands like a punchline with receipts. He did not merely say he would act; he said he would do it “with dispatch, forthwith.” That pairing is not accidental. “Dispatch” is already urgent. Adding “forthwith” is like double-underlining a memo and still emailing a follow-up. It is also a subtle dig at the recent era when “forthwith” seemed to require a committee hearing, a calendar invite, a reschedule, and perhaps a short spiritual retreat to discern what the word truly wanted to be when it grew up. The sarcasm writes itself, but the underlying point is serious: whether one supports or opposes an impeachment attempt, the country deserves a process that is not held hostage by creative interpretation.

There is also an odd historical irony here: Sotto himself is on record using “forthwith” in the opposite direction—warning in 2025 against dismissing an impeachment case “forthwith,” arguing the Senate should allow the Supreme Court process to run its course because reversals are possible. That earlier “let us not dismiss forthwith” was a caution against premature burial, not a permission for indefinite sleeping. It was “pause,” not “stall.” The nuance matters. It shows that the word can be used responsibly, like a brake pedal, not like a parking brake left on for months. If anything, it strengthens the argument in Sotto’s favor today: he has treated “forthwith” as an actual timing concept before, not as a philosophical hobby.

Escudero’s season, on the other hand, turned “forthwith” into a national vocabulary quiz. Some citizens began quoting dictionaries the way parents quote report cards. Merriam-Webster says it is “without any delay: immediately.” Cambridge says “immediately.” And yet, public frustration kept rising, not only because of the word, but because of what the word represented: a suspicion that procedure was being used as a cushion, and that the cushion was stuffed with politics. A couple of scribes even framed the issue as “weaponizing ‘forthwith’” to ditch the trial—language that captures the public mood: not merely confused, but offended at how elastic language can become when power is on the line. When people start treating dictionaries as protest placards, you know trust has thinned.

Now comes the part where the country is expected to be mature: impeachment is not a guilty verdict, and “forthwith” is not a conviction button. Even Senator Sherwin Gatchalian stressed that acting on impeachment does not presume guilt; it is part of checks and balances. This matters because the discourse online is a mess—half of it reads like a bar fight, half like a law school group chat, and almost all of it is drenched in suspicion. But “forthwith” is precisely meant to protect the public from drawn-out games. It pushes the Senate to begin the trial promptly so evidence can be tested and the public can see whether allegations stand or fall. The irony is that delay often harms everyone: it keeps the accused under a cloud and keeps the public under a question mark.

The Supreme Court’s interventions and the one-year bar rule complicated the timeline, and that reality deserves acknowledgement. The Court, in a July 2025 release, explained its ruling on the one-year rule and due process issues around the earlier impeachment attempt. That context is important because it reminds us: the word “forthwith” does not exist in a vacuum; it collides with litigation, motions for reconsideration, and political timing. Still, “complicated” is not the same as “optional.” If anything, complexity is exactly why the Senate must be seen acting with clarity and consistency. Otherwise, we train citizens to believe that rules are strict only when convenient.

So yes, it is tempting—almost delicious—to treat Sotto’s “forthwith” as a comedic upgrade from the previous administration of the word. One can imagine two versions of the Senate: one where “forthwith” is a brisk knock on the door, and another where “forthwith” is a “seen-zoned” message followed by “busy ako ngayon.” But governance is not stand-up comedy, and sarcasm should still point somewhere useful. Here is the useful direction: “forthwith” should mean what the public reasonably thinks it means—start the process immediately, follow the steps, and let accountability happen in the open. The Senate is a continuing institution, and impeachment is a constitutional duty, not a seasonal elective.

If Sotto wants to make his “forthwith” credible, the public will measure it in ordinary, unglamorous ways: how fast notices are issued, how quickly the body convenes, how promptly rules are clarified, and how consistently the Senate resists both hysteria and hesitation. And if critics want to be fair, they should admit that speed is not the enemy of due process; sometimes it is the ally. The faster a fair process starts, the less room there is for rumor to grow fangs. The longer the wait, the louder the conspiracy industry becomes. We have seen this movie too many times, and it always sells tickets.

In the end, “forthwith” is not just an English word with old-fashioned flair. It is the Constitution’s way of reminding powerful people that accountability is not supposed to be scheduled around comfort. It is meant to interrupt. It is meant to be inconvenient. That is the point. So laugh a little at the idea of leaders debating the definition of a word that every dictionary has already defined, then stop laughing long enough to demand the obvious: when the Constitution says “forthwith,” it is not asking for a clever interpretation. It is asking for movement—clean, prompt, and visible. And if Senate leadership now insists it will act “with dispatch, forthwith,” the country has every right to reply, quietly but firmly: good. Now do it.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.