‘MAY FORTHWITH BE WITH YOU?’: Former Ilonggo Lawmakers Say Senate Must Start Duterte Impeachment Trial

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

Two former Ilonggo lawmakers with experience in impeachment cases said on Feb. 7 that the Senate must begin the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte immediately, in accordance with the Constitution.

Former 5th District Rep. Rolex Suplico emphasized the significance of the word “forthwith” in the constitutional provision regarding the Senate’s impeachment trial.

The full provision, under Section 3(4), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, states:

“In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House [of Representatives], the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

House Secretary-General Reginald Velasco announced during the House plenary session on Feb. 5 that 215 members signed the verified impeachment complaint against Duterte, surpassing the required one-third threshold (102 votes) of the 306-member House.

Suplico told Daily Guardian on Air via Aksyon Radyo-Iloilo that two legal interpretations of the term “forthwith” exist, but its immediate application seems most appropriate.

“Some interpret ‘forthwith’ as ‘immediately,’ while others take it to mean ‘as soon as possible.’ ‘As soon as possible’ could mean next week or even next month. But if we follow ‘forthwith,’ it should be immediate,” he said.

He added that some believe the legislative calendar does not apply to impeachment trials because once the Senate receives the complaint, it automatically constitutes itself as an impeachment court, separate from its ordinary legislative function.

Suplico also questioned whether the same senators in the 19th Congress would remain as the impeachment court after June 30, when the 20th Congress begins.

Several senators will be retiring, including Nancy Binay, Koko Pimentel, Grace Poe, and Cynthia Villar, while Bato Dela Rosa, Pia Cayetano, Bong Go, Lito Lapid, Imee Marcos, and Francis Tolentino are running for re-election.

Suplico was Iloilo vice governor when he filed an impeachment complaint against then-Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chair Benjamin Abalos Sr. over the National Broadband Network-ZTE deal controversy in 2007.

He also questioned whether this latest impeachment complaint—the fourth filed under the 19th Congress—qualifies as a separate impeachment case or is subject to the one-year bar rule under Section 3(5), Article XI of the Constitution.

“No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”

However, in the 2003 Supreme Court ruling on Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, the court clarified that “to initiate” refers to both the filing of the complaint and the House’s initial action on the case.

This means an impeachment case is considered initiated either when it is filed and referred to the House Justice Committee or when one-third of House members sign a verified complaint.

SAME CONGRESS?

Suplico’s cousin, former Iloilo 5th district congressman Niel “Junjun” Tupas Jr., said that Senate President Francis Escudero’s plan to discuss the impeachment case on June 2 raises questions about the meaning of “forthwith.”

Tupas, who was part of the 10-member House prosecution panel in the 2012 impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, said the Constitution mandates the Senate to convene immediately as an impeachment court.

“The Constitution states ‘forthwith proceed.’ That means immediately, without delay. If we follow the Constitution, the Senate must convene as an impeachment court right away,” he said.

He warned that following the legislative recess could prevent the trial from concluding before June 30, raising constitutional concerns.

“They won’t finish the trial by June 30. If they don’t finish, another constitutional issue arises—because once Congress adjourns, all its proceedings end,” he said.

“When the 19th Congress ends, no new impeachment complaint can be filed against the same official due to the one-year bar rule. That raises more constitutional issues,” he added.

Tupas also questioned why the previous impeachment complaints against Duterte were not included in the House’s order of business.

Section 3(2), Article XI of the Constitution states: “A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper committee within three session days thereafter.”

Three impeachment resolutions were filed against Duterte in December 2024, but none were included in the House calendar of business.

The first complaint was filed by civil society groups on Dec. 2, 2024, endorsed by Akbayan Party-list Rep. Percival Cendaña.

The second complaint was filed on Dec. 4 by left-leaning groups under the Makabayan bloc, endorsed by party-list Reps. Arlene Brosas (GABRIELA), France Castro (ACT Teachers), and Raoul Manuel (Kabataan).

The third complaint was filed on Dec. 19 by a coalition of priests, lawyers, and civil society groups, endorsed by Reps. Gabriel Bordado (Camarines Sur-3rd District) and Lex Anthony Cris Colada (AAMBIS-OWA Party-list).

Tupas’s question alluded to notions that the previous complaints were deliberately set aside to put time constraints on the impeachment efforts.