The word “forthwith” has been in the Philippine Constitution since its enactment in 1987. But why did it not gain popularity during the impeachment trial of former president Joseph Estrada in 2000, or even during the impeachment of trial of the late Supreme Court chief justice Renato Corona in 2012? Why has it only become popular now with the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte?
There might be many reasons, but one of them is that the impeachment of VP Sara is unique because the current Congress’s term is ending, raising legal questions about whether the next Congress can continue the impeachment trial. Unlike the Estrada and Corona trials, which were not disrupted by an election, this situation presents a new legal challenge.
There are at least two schools of thought on whether or not the next Congress can proceed with the trial, which I plan to discuss in my next column, as the topic requires more space. For now, let us take a look at the petitions that have reached the Supreme Court regarding VP Sara’s impeachment trial.
On one hand, there is a petition for Mandamus asking the Supreme Court to order the Senate to forthwith proceed with the impeachment trial. On the other hand, there is a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the Senate from conducting the trial.
Let me focus on the first petition, which is Mandamus-- meaning in English “we command.” The basis of the petition is the provision in the Constitution, Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 1, which states, ”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.”
The petitioner argues, citing dictionary definitions, that the word “forthwith” means immediately, without any delay, or right away. Therefore, the Senate should conduct the trial immediately and should not wait for its resumption on June 2, 2025 or in July after the president’s State of the Nation Address.
For purposes of academic discussion --without any other intention and with full emphasis on respecting the Supreme Court’s ruling when it decides on the matter-- there are at least two possible ways the court could rule, both with sufficient legal basis.
1.) The court could agree the arguments of the petitioner and make a specific legal clarification as to the timeline when the word “forthwith” is being used. If the court says that June 2 is too late and does not fall within the meaning of “forthwith”, it can order the Senate to proceed with the trial before that date.
2.) However, the court may also consider this a political question and leave it to wisdom of the Senate to determine the timeline and meaning of “forthwith”. If the court takes this position, it would also be justified, as the Senate is a co-equal branch of government under the principle of separation of powers. The court may give due respect to the Senate as co-equal branch of government. In this scenario, we would then wait for the Senate to resume its session on June 2.
We can expect more legal and technical questions as the impeachment trial unfolds. We just hope that no constitutional crisis arises, as it could negatively impact our economy.