By Kyle Dane Ballogan, a political scientist and student of legal studies in University of Baguio.

On February 5, 2025, the House of Representatives transmitted a verified complaint for impeachment to the Senate, which became the Articles of Impeachment. These Articles of Impeachment stemmed from the overwhelming stance of the House of Representatives and the Filipino people to determine Vice President Sara Duterte’s fitness to continue holding the position.

Weeks after the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment, the general public remained attentive spectators, eager to see what would happen next. However, among legal practitioners and academics, the impeachment at the Senate level sparked debates over differing legal interpretations regarding the start of the impeachment trial.

Some lawyers maintain that the Senate must commence the impeachment trial immediately, citing Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 4 of the 1987 Constitution:

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

They argue that the word “forthwith” means immediate or without delay, and, therefore, the impeachment trial should begin promptly. Other legal experts, however, believe that the Senate can only proceed after the elections because it is not a continuing body, there is insufficient time for the trial, and the transition from the 19th Congress to the 20th Congress would disrupt the process. Some also claim that if the impeachment trial begins under the 20th Congress, it would be unconstitutional, as the impeachment was initiated under the 19th Congress and remained unacted upon. This, they argue, would violate the one-year bar rule on impeachment under the Constitution, which states:

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

Regarding the Senate’s position, Senate President Francis Escudero stated, “[The trial] will likely extend into the 20th Congress. The decision will be rendered during the 20th Congress; that’s almost certain.” As for the trial’s starting point, the earliest Senate action on the impeachment could take place on June 2, 2025, or after the elections.

The primary question, therefore, is whether the Senate can convene as an impeachment court while it is adjourned.

First, the general rule in statutory construction follows the Plain Meaning Rule. When the words of the law are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, there is no room for interpretation—only application. In constitutional construction, this principle is known as Verba Legis, as explained by the Supreme Court in J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration:

“We look to the language of the document itself in our search for its meaning…that is where we begin…They are to be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus attached to them prevails. As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the people’s consciousness, its language as much as possible should be understood in the sense they have in common use.”

Here, the Constitution states, “trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.” There is no ambiguity—“trial” refers to the impeachment trial; “shall” denotes compulsion; “forthwith” means immediately; and “proceed” means to begin. Therefore, once the Senate received the verified complaint or resolution constituting the Articles of Impeachment, it had a constitutional duty to begin the trial immediately.

However, since the Senate adjourned its plenary session from February 5 until June 2, 2024, can it still convene for the impeachment trial? The answer is yes. Applying the principle of Verba Legis, the Constitution uses the term “shall,” which signifies a mandatory obligation. Whether the Senate is adjourned, whether an election is near, or whether half of its members will be replaced, the trial must proceed forthwith.

Interestingly, the Senate and the impeachment process are treated separately under the 1987 Constitution. The Senate is established under Article VI as a lawmaking body, while impeachment is outlined under Article XI as an accountability mechanism. Although Article XI grants the Senate the sole power to “try and decide” impeachment cases, this does not mean that the impeachment process is inherently tied to the Senate’s legislative functions or schedules. The Senate’s authority to “try and decide” pertains to the merits of the case—not the timing of the trial. Since impeachment is a distinct constitutional process assigned to both chambers of Congress, it should not be contingent on the Senate’s composition, recess, or other legislative activities.

Thus, what matters is that there is a House of Representatives to initiate the impeachment and a Senate to try and decide it, provided both adhere to the required votes, penalties, and timeframes set under Article XI. This is the straightforward process established by the Constitution.

So, when must the Senate begin the impeachment trial? To comply with the Constitution, the Senate should have commenced the trial immediately by convening its members, administering their oath or affirmation, and allowing the proceedings to unfold—even if it extends into the 20th Congress. However, this raises another question: What constitutes “forthwith” versus a delay in the Senate’s context? An old legal maxim states, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” As a flexible concept, “forthwith” must be understood in light of impeachment being a political process—when a case is ripe, and the time has come, the impeachment trial must proceed swiftly to ensure a timely resolution. The case is deemed ripe the moment the House of Representatives initiates the impeachment.

Ultimately, matters of public accountability, especially those involving impeachable offenses, must not be hindered by technicalities or procedural delays. Given that impeachment is sui generis—a unique process in a class of its own—it carries significant weight for the public and must be acted upon promptly.

Photo credit: Facebook/senateph

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author in this piece do not necessarily reflect those of his/her school or Politico.ph.