SC says Senate delay in convening impeachment court not grave abuse

THE Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday ruled that the Philippine Senate did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it did not immediately convene as an impeachment court to try Vice-President (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio in 2025, clarifying that the constitutional term “forthwith” means within a reasonable time.

Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, the SC found that the Senate acted on the impeachment complaint in a timely manner by prioritizing necessary preparations over an immediate trial during a session break.

“The term ‘forthwith’ in Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution means within a reasonable time, which may be longer or shorter, depending on the circumstances of each case,” the court said in a news briefing on the ruling penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda.

The petitioner, Catalino Aldea Generillo, Jr., a former special counsel for the Presidential Commission on Good Government, had filed the petition for mandamus to compel the chamber to start the trial.

In a 14-0-1 en banc decision on Wednesday, the high tribunal said that the timing of such proceedings falls under the Senate’s discretion as a co-equal branch of government.

“While the Constitution does not set an exact date for the trial, the Senate must avoid undue delay to uphold the principle that public officers must at all times be accountable to the people,” it added.

This challenge emerged during a period of intense institutional friction, following the House of Representatives’ move to impeach Ms. Duterte for the first time over alleged fund misuse, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes.

The court considered the petition moot as the Articles of Impeachment had already been nullified by a previous SC ruling.

With no valid charges remaining, the court found no further legal basis to order the Senate to convene.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa took no part in the ruling.

PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE
Meanwhile, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), acting as counsel for the House of Representatives and its Committee on Justice, told the High Court that the consolidated petitions challenging current impeachment proceedings against Ms. Duterte are procedurally defective and should be dismissed for lack of merit.

In an 85-page comment-opposition dated April 23, the OSG, headed by Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe, maintained that the House acted within the Constitution and followed proper impeachment rules without violating due process or anyone’s rights.

“Neither has there been any grave abuse of discretion, which would warrant this Honorable Court’s exercise of judicial review,” the government’s counsel said.

“These petitions are nothing more than an attempt to abuse the expanded power of judicial review as a means to avoid accountability — even before the constitutionally mandated impeachment process begins,” the OSG added.

This came in response to petitions for certiorari and prohibition filed by Davao-based lawyer Israelito P. Torreon and others allied with the VP, as well as a separate petition from Ms. Duterte herself.

“The Torreon petition is fatally defective, petitioners therein are not the proper parties to institute a petition for certiorari, as they failed to establish any personal and substantial interest in the case or any direct injury, actual or threatened, arising from the assailed acts. For this procedural defect alone, the same must be dismissed,” the OSG said.

Regarding the VP’s petition, the OSG said it was premature and “not ripe for judicial determination” because the proceedings before the Justice committee are still ongoing. It argued that even after the committee concludes its work, there is yet no adverse effect against Ms. Duterte, as the panel’s function is limited to preparing a report for the plenary that does not produce any binding legal effect on its own.

The OSG also refuted claims that Ms. Duterte’s right to due process was violated, noting she was formally invited to attend hearings but did not do so.

SUPPLEMENTAL
In a supplemental petition filed on April 27, Mr. Torreon and his group attacked the validity of House Resolution No. 892, which authorized the House Committee on Justice to conduct substantive impeachment proceedings between March 21 and May 3, while Congress was in its regular recess.

“This is not a mere scheduling matter. It is a constitutional distortion,” Mr. Torreon said in his new filing.

It argued that the House cannot unilaterally redefine “session days” to include recess periods, as doing so violates the mandatory and self-executing procedural timelines established by the Constitution.

The petitioners reiterated their request for the High Court to grant an urgent Temporary Restraining Order to immediately enjoin the House panel from conducting further hearings — such relief was also sought in their original petition.

In the interim, the petitioners have challenged the validity of several impeachment complaints filed in early 2026.

Ms. Duterte is facing impeachment complaints over alleged misuse of public funds, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and an alleged plot to assassinate President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.

Political analysts earlier said that the move to unseat her through impeachment could undermine her standing as a leading contender for the 2028 presidential election, as corruption allegations risk eroding the political capital she has built since her 2022 victory. — Erika Mae P. Sinaking