Supreme Court: 'Forthwith' means 'reasonable time' in impeachment trials

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court said the Constitution’s directive for the Senate to proceed “forthwith” with an impeachment trial does not require immediate convening, but action within a reasonable timeframe based on the circumstances.

In a 14-0-1 decision promulgated on April 29, penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the high court dismissed a petition for mandamus seeking to compel the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court for Vice President Sara Duterte.

The petition, filed by Catalino Aldea Generillo Jr., asked the court to order the Senate to act on the impeachment complaint.

The court said mandamus was not the proper remedy, citing the Senate’s status as a co-equal constitutional body.

It said the judiciary cannot control the Senate’s actions within its sphere absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Still, the court treated the petition as one for certiorari to determine whether the Senate acted unlawfully by not convening during a session break.

"Contrary to the petitioner's claim, the SC found that the Senate acted on the impeachment complaint in a timely manner," the high court said in a statement.

‘Forthwith’ allows flexibility. The Supreme Court explained that while the Constitution sets session-day deadlines for the House of Representatives, it provides no fixed timeframe for the Senate to begin a trial beyond the instruction to proceed “forthwith.”

It said the term allows flexibility to accommodate preparations needed to organize an impeachment court.

At the same time, the court said the Senate “must avoid undue delay to uphold the principle that public officers must at all times be accountable to the people.”

Petition declared moot

The court said the petition had become moot after earlier rulings in July 2025 and January 2026 voided the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte.

"A case is moot when subsequent events remove any issues, making court rulings unnecessary. Since no Articles of Impeachment remained, the SC had no reason to order the Senate to convene as an impeachment court," the Supreme Court said.

Meanwhile, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen concurred that the petition was moot but differed on procedure, saying the impeachment court should have been organized immediately.

He said responsibility for organizing the body should rest with the impeachment court as a whole, not solely the Senate president.

House action proceeds. Separately, the House Committee on Justice on Wednesday, April 29, found probable cause to impeach Duterte.

All 53 members present voted to approve two motions declaring probable cause on the complaints.

The findings will be forwarded to the plenary, where at least one-third of all House members must vote to approve the articles of impeachment before they can be transmitted to the Senate for trial.