House leaders rebut Cynthia Villar: Senate still has two days for impeachment before adjournment

Administration lawmakers fired back at Senator Cynthia Villar on Thursday after she blamed the House of Representatives for allegedly delaying the transmission of the articles of impeachment, which stalled Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial.

House Assistant Majority Leaders Jude Acidre and Jefferson Khonghun refuted Villar’s assertion that the Senate was not at fault, emphasizing that the House acted within the legislative timeline.

Villar, a key Duterte ally, argued that the House’s last-minute transmittal of the impeachment articles on 5 February — the last day of session — left the Senate with no time to act.

Acidre and Khonghun, however, countered that the Senate still had two days to address the impeachment complaint, as Congress was originally set to adjourn on 7 February, per Concurrent Resolution No. 22.

"With all due respect to our good senator, Ma'am Cynthia, it is clear from the legislative calendar that the session was not adjourned yet when the Senate received the articles of impeachment. They still had two days to act if they really wanted to start the process right away. It’s a leadership issue," Acidre stated.

Khonghun echoed this sentiment, arguing that the Senate had ample time to discuss the matter but chose not to.

"The legislative calendar of the Senate and the House are the same — our session was until 7 February… We are not playing the blame game, but what happened was clear. The House followed the process and the legislative calendar. The question is why didn't the Senate act immediately?" he said.

The House formally impeached Duterte on 5 February, just two days before Congress went on a four-month recess for the midterm elections. Though the impeachment articles reached the Senate before adjournment, Villar backed Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s stance that they needed more time to review the documents.

"How can we tackle that? Why did they transmit it on the last day of the session? They just suddenly decided they want impeachment and expect us to work on it while we're about to go in recess?" Villar questioned.

Villar, who is reportedly eyeing a return to the House, also argued that it was unrealistic to expect senators to convene for a trial while they were busy campaigning.

Tensions between House prosecutors and Escudero have escalated, with the latter insisting that the trial will only commence once the 20th Congress convenes and 12 new senators are sworn in.

Escudero has maintained that holding a trial during the congressional break "legally cannot be done" and that Senate procedures must not be rushed to satisfy political pressure.

Acidre, however, contended that the Senate’s inaction violated the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that the chamber must "forthwith" proceed with an impeachment trial upon receiving the articles.

The vague phrasing of "forthwith proceed" has sparked debate among constitutional experts, lawmakers, and legal analysts.

Acidre warned that delaying the trial could allow Duterte to remain in office despite serious allegations involving the misuse of confidential funds. He also raised concerns that prolonged inaction could make the process vulnerable to external influence, misinformation, and political maneuvering.

"Acting ‘forthwith’ is not just a legal and constitutional duty — it is a moral obligation. The Senate must act now," he stressed.

Critics speculate that the Senate’s hesitancy is tied to the midterm elections, with re-electionist senators accused of playing it safe.

The House filed seven impeachment charges against Duterte, including betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. A total of 215 lawmakers signed the impeachment articles.

To convict Duterte, the Senate needs a two-thirds vote — at least 16 out of 24 senators. If found guilty, she will be permanently disqualified from holding public office, jeopardizing her rumored 2028 presidential bid.