
07/06/2025
๐๐๐๐๐ | Forthwith Forfeited
The impeachment process is a critical mechanism for holding high-ranking public officials accountable. It is designed to be both swift and deliberate, ensuring that abuses of power are addressed without political interference. Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that once an impeachment complaint is transmitted from the House of Representatives, the Senate must โforthwith proceedโ to trial [1]. This requirement emphasizes the importance of immediate and impartial action, reflecting the framers' intent to protect democratic institutions from delay and manipulation.
Not even the attempt to downplay the urgency of this mandate can override its constitutional weight. Senate President Francis (Chiz) Escudero, for instance, remarked: โKung ang intention โnyo po ay โyan talaga, sana sinulat โnyo po โyan sa Constitution. Pati ang paggamit ng salitang โforthwith,โ sana ginamit โnyo na immediately. Hindi โnyo naman po nagawa at ginawa โyun, hindi po para sa amin na bigyang interpretasyon ang isang bagay ayon lang po sa pananaw โnyo ngayon.โ [2] However, this assertion undermines the principle of constitutional supremacy. The term โforthwithโ has been judicially recognized to mean โwithout delayโ or โimmediately,โ consistent with the framersโ intent to ensure prompt action.
In ๐๐ต๐ต๐บ. ๐๐ข๐ค๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ญ ๐ท. ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ช๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐๐ญ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด, ๐.๐. ๐๐ฐ. 157013 (2003) [3] & ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ญ๐ข ๐๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ต๐ฆ๐ญ ๐ท๐ด. ๐๐๐๐, 335 ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ญ. 82, 101 (1997)[4], the Supreme Court categorically stated that โthe Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered." Thus, adherence to the Constitution is not subject to the personal interpretations or hesitations of legislators, it is a binding obligation. The language of the Constitution must be interpreted in a way that upholds its intent, not weakens its force.
The current delay in the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte raises serious constitutional and political concerns. The Senateโs failure to act promptly represents a deviation from the doctrine of constitutional adherence, which obliges government branches to uphold not only the letter but also the spirit of the Constitution. This inaction frustrates the publicโs right to truth and transparency in government, potentially undermining democratic values and weakening trust in institutions that are meant to safeguard accountability.
Refusing to hold the trial is more than just negligence, it is a betrayal of the Filipino people. If political considerations continue to override constitutional duties, the integrity of the impeachment process, and by extension, the rule of law, will be severely compromised. Such delays set a dangerous precedent where accountability becomes contingent on political support rather than legal and ethical responsibility. To restore public trust and uphold its constitutional mandate, the Senate must rise above political pressures and proceed with the impeachment trial. Upholding the Constitution without hesitation is not optional; it is essential to preserving justice, accountability, and the future of a democratic governance.
[1] Article XI, Section 3, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
[2] Buan, L. (2025, April 3). Escudero blames wording of Constitution over slow start of Sara Duterte impeachment trial. Rappler. โฆhttps://www.rappler.com/philippines/escudero-blames-wording-constitution-slow-start-sara-duterte-impeachment-trial/โฉ
[3] Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 429 SCRA 736 (2003). โฆhttps://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/58384โฉ
[4] Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 122156, 267 SCRA 408 (1997). โฆhttps://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/34508โฉ