The meaning of “forthwith” in impeachment cases

THE SUPREME Court released its ruling to define a key term in the Constitutional provision on impeachment, interpreting the word “forthwith” to mean “within a reasonable time, which may be longer or shorter, depending on the circumstances of each case.”

The decision came more than a year after a lawyer, Catalino Aldea Generillo Jr., petitioned the SC on February 14, 2025 to direct the Senate to convene itself as an impeachment court in the case of Vice President Sara Duterte, arguing that “forthwith” indicated a level of urgency. The SC ruled that as a co-equal body, it cannot compel the Senate to do its duty.

What legal experts say

Different lawyers interviewed by the media between April 30 and May 7 – Mel Sta. Maria of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law, Paolo Tamase of the University of the Philippines College of Law, and Domingo Cayosa, former president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines –agreed that the ruling gave discretionary power to the Senate, but the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution was clear enough to convey the need to act immediately. Both Cayosa and Tamase pointed out that in the Filipino version of the Charter, there was no question in the timeframe as it used the word “kaagad,” which means “immediately.”  

Can the Senate refuse to convene?

On April 30, then Senate President Vicente Sotto III committed to begin the trial once the Senate receives the articles of impeachment. He told the media that for him, “forthwith” meant “the following day.” However, on May 11, the same day that the House of Representatives voted to impeach Duterte, the Senate moved to oust Sotto and replace him with Alan Peter Cayetano, a known Duterte ally. 
Online media reported the joint statement issued on May 12 by thirty signatories, deans and professors from different law schools – among them retired Supreme Court Justice Adolfo Azcuna, Antonio Laviña, and Fr. Ranhilio Aquino. Thirty signatories reminded the Senate that it cannot refuse to convene as an impeachment court as it is bound by the Constitution to do so. Retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio and Atty. Tranquil Salvador, lawyer of impeached Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona, shared the same view in separate media interviews.

Interviewed on DZMM on May 11, Carpio said the impeachment proceedings would only discuss administrative liabilities. He said the verdict would not absolve Vice President Sara Duterte of any liability for any criminal charges that may be filed against her. She is currently facing complaints filed by the National Bureau of Investigation for inciting to sedition and grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Media reported that the Senate received the articles of impeachment evening of May 13, Wednesday. The public now awaits the beginning of the trial.