The Senate is not barred by the Constitution from immediately starting the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, even during a congressional recess.

Neither is the legislative calendar an obstacle to the 19th Congress getting to the bottom of the allegations against the second-highest official of the land.

This was stressed by Iloilo Rep. Lorenz Defensor, one of the 11 House members who will form the prosecution team against Duterte, in an interview Tuesday, taking a contrary position to the expressed view of some senators.

Defensor argued that no provision of the Constitution mandates that an impeachment trial shall only begin after Congress convenes for a session.

On Monday, Senate President Chiz Escudero said Duterte’s trial may start in July after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. delivers his State of the Nation Address before the newly sworn-in members of the 20th Congress.

Prior to that, Escudero appeared ready for the Senate to open Duterte’s trial under the 19th Congress when its members convene on 2 June after a break.

Earlier, Escudero advised his fellow senators not to issue statements that may appear to go against or be in support of Duterte, as they cannot be perceived as having prejudged her guilt or innocence.

We’re not overeager

Defensor, however, insisted that House members were not overeager to try Duterte, saying that they just want to do things by the book as guided by the laws of the land.

“That is in our Constitution. It has been clearly and repeatedly said, even by our constitutionalists and experts, that the trial shall forthwith proceed, meaning immediately,” Defensor said.

“It doesn’t matter if Congress is in session or on break. Once [the articles of impeachment] are transmitted to the Senate, they shall receive it as a court already,” the lawmaker added.

The 19th Congress is set to adjourn sine die on 13 June. One month thereafter, a new batch of lawmakers — all the district representatives and 12 of the 24-member Senate — will be sworn in, commencing the 20th Congress.

Escudero earlier said that holding a trial during the congressional break “legally cannot be done” since the articles of impeachment — which would serve as the basis for the impeachment court to be convened — were not referred to the plenary before Congress adjourned last week.

215 votes

The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on 5 February with 215 lawmakers, or more than twice the required one-third or 102 signatories, voting to endorse the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

The articles of impeachment are anchored on Duterte’s alleged plot to have Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos and House Speaker Martin Romualdez killed, as well as on the purported misappropriation of P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to her office and the Department of Education during her tenure as its secretary.

Paragraph 4, Section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution stipulates that “in case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House [...] the trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

However, the interpretation of “forthwith proceed” has sparked debate among constitutionalists, lawyers and lawmakers.

Lawyer Rene Sarmiento, a former Comelec commissioner and one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, asserted that its meaning and translation clearly state that it must be done immediately.

“The Tagalog version of our Constitution is well written. What does ‘forthwith proceed’ mean? In the Tagalog version, it means, ‘It must be followed immediately.’ The word is ‘immediately,’” Sarmiento said in Filipino.

Former Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, also a framer of the Constitution, agreed with Sarmiento.

“Even if the senators are on legislative recess, they have to convene, take the required oaths or affirmations, and proceed to trial. There is no need for a call. The provision of Article XI is the call. It is, in fact, and in law, an order. SHALL FORTHWITH PROCEED,” Azcuna wrote in a Facebook post.

But for Michael Henry Yusingco, a constitutionalist and senior research fellow at the Ateneo Policy Center, the meaning is vague, leading to multiple interpretations.

“What does immediate mean? They received it yesterday, so the next day they shall convene? I don’t think so,” he said.

The prosecutors from the House, including Defensor, have insisted that they are not rushing the Senate to expedite the trial, but that their call is merely based on what is mandated by the Constitution.

Not legislative work

Defensor contended that Congress’ adjournment does not cover the impeachment trial and thus it shall not be treated as legislative work.

“Our adjournment is an adjournment of our legislative calendar. But as constitutional commission member Christian Monsod said, this is a totally different matter. This is sui generis, and the Senate’s acceptance of the articles of impeachment is not the act of accepting it as part of a legislature,” he explained.

“It’s already in your court, you’ve accepted it already. You are like a judge now in a trial court [and] something has been filed before your court, so you should really act on that,” he added.

Nonetheless, Defensor made it clear that urging President Marcos to call for a special session has never been on the table.

“The President should not involve himself in this matter. He should not call for a special session. The President should take his hands off this and wait for the Senate,” he said.

“It is clear in the Constitution that there is no need for a special session to begin a trial or proceeding. There is no need for a referral; there is no need for any act for the Senate because, automatically, once the complaint has been transmitted to the Senate, they should receive it and proceed with the trial,” the lawmaker said.

The House outlined seven impeachable offenses against Duterte, including betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.