The Senate must urgently convene to begin deliberating and deciding on the impeachment articles filed against Vice President Duterte, as mandated by the 1987 Constitution, lawyer Rene Sarmiento said.
Sarmiento, a former Commission on Elections commissioner and a framemaker of the 1987 Constitution, explained on Teleradyo Serbisyo that the term “forthwith proceed” means the Senate must take immediate action.
According to the 1987 Constitution, a verified impeachment complaint filed by at least one-third of the 306 members of the House of Representatives will “constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
The Senate went into recess on Wednesday without discussing the impeachment case against Duterte.
The decision of the Senate to push back the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte to June when Congress resumes session is not aligned with the provision of the Constitution, former presidential adviser Teresita Deles earlier said.
Deles, representing Tindig Pilipinas, joined other members of the Buhay ang EDSA People Power Network Friday in asking the Senate to act on the impeachment immediately.
Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua on Saturday defended the timing of the impeachment complaint against the Vice President, stressing that refiling is unnecessary and that lawmakers took a strategic approach to ensure the case moves forward.
Citing the Constitution, he pointed out that once an impeachment case reaches the Senate, proceedings must begin immediately.
Chua, who is also chair of the House Committee on Good Governance and Accountability, acknowledged that legal interpretations may vary, particularly among lawyers.
“You know that lawyers sometimes have different interpretations of a law—this depends on what your beliefs are and how you understand it,” he said.
The timing of the impeachment trial has sparked debate, with lawmakers weighing the challenges of holding proceedings amid the election season.
Chua recognized the difficulty senators may face as they balance their roles as impeachment prosecutors while campaigning for reelection.
“In fairness to the Senate President, he’s probably considering the dilemma of his colleagues who are also on the campaign trail,” he said.
Still, he emphasized that the Senate remains a “continuing body” and should proceed with impeachment regardless of changes in its composition after the elections.
“The Senate, unlike the Congress in the Lower House, is a continuing body—what that means is that their function is ongoing,” he explained.
Chua outlined the two possible routes for impeachment: a committee hearing before the House Committee on Justice or direct House action via a one-third vote from lawmakers.
He said the decision to file the complaint on the last day was deliberate, ensuring the case had the best chance of reaching the Senate.
“Our concern was that if the first three complaints went through the Committee on Justice, they might not reach the Senate in time,” Chua said.
“Congress adjourns on June 30, and if the process isn’t completed by then, we would have to start over in the 20th Congress, triggering a one-year ban on filing another impeachment complaint against the same official,” he added.
He also pointed to precedent, citing the impeachment case against former President Joseph Estrada, which advanced under then-Speaker Manny Villar using a similar approach.
