Legal experts are divided on the impact of the Supreme Court’s (SC) definition of the term “forthwith” in its ruling dismissing a petition seeking to compel the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court to try the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

The Supreme Court’s definition was taken to mean within a reasonable time.

A former counsel to the late Chief Justice Renato Corona in his impeachment case believes the High Tribunal’s position could reduce the Senate’s urgency to convene an impeachment court.

Lawyer Tranquil Salvador III, one of the defense lawyers during the historic trial of Corona, indicated that, given the ruling, Senate President Vicente Sotto III will not be pressured to immediately constitute an impeachment court.

“Let’s say they voted in the plenary, right? Let’s try to visualize it sometime around May. So it’s expected that the impeachment complaint will be forwarded to the Senate and they will have to wait for the Senate’s move and respect it,” Salvador said.

Prof. Paolo Tamase, University of the Philippines College of Law Associate Dean, said the High Court could have dismissed the petition as moot without issuing an extended interpretation of the constitutional term.

“Instead, the Court appears to set yet again new rules on how the Senate should interpret its own sole power to try an impeachment case,” Tamase said in a post on X.

He said it would have been better for the Senate to determine the meaning of “forthwith” on its own, especially since the High Court had already declared the petition moot.

He also questioned the timing of the ruling, noting that it was released on the same day the House Committee on Justice found probable cause to impeach Duterte.

Tamase said the SC must be careful not to be perceived as encroaching on political territory, noting that public trust in the institution could suffer if the line between law and politics is blurred.

Immediate convening

The interpretation of “forthwith” stemmed from a petition filed by Catalino Aldea Generillo Jr., who sought to compel the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court to hear the first impeachment complaint against Duterte that was filed in 2025.

In a 14-0-1 ruling penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a mandamus was not the proper remedy because the Senate, as a co-equal branch of government, cannot be compelled to exercise its constitutional functions absent a grave abuse of discretion.

Still, “in the interest of equity,” the High Court treated the petition as one for certiorari and found that the Senate acted on the impeachment complaint promptly.

The Court also declared the case moot after the Senate began impeachment proceedings and the articles of impeachment tied to the first complaint were eventually vacated.

The issue over the timing of the Senate action dates back to February 2025, when then Senate President Francis Escudero said the Senate would rely on the Office of the Solicitor General to respond to petitions asking the Court to compel the chamber to act on Duterte’s impeachment case.

At the time, several groups, including Bayan Muna, as well as then Senate Minority Leader Koko Pimentel, pushed for the Senate to immediately begin impeachment proceedings, citing the Constitution’s use of the word “forthwith.”

Political analyst Dennis Coronacion, a Daily Tribune columnist, said Supreme Court rulings on impeachment-related petitions could significantly shape both the direction of the proceedings and the public perception of the case.

His remarks came after the Duterte camp earlier asked the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the impeachment proceedings.