SC ruling ‘vindicates’ Senate’s handling of 2025

SC ruling ‘vindicates’ Senate’s handling of 2025 | Daily Tribune

Tongol said the SC’s 14-0-1 en banc ruling in Catalino Aldea Generillo Jr. v. Senate of the Philippines clarified that the constitutional directive for the Senate to proceed “forthwith” on impeachment complaints should be interpreted as action taken within a “reasonable time,” rather than immediate action.

Tongol, who served as spokesperson of the 2025 Senate Impeachment Court under then-Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, said the decision affirmed the Senate leadership’s decision to prioritize due process and preparation for a fair trial.

“We refused to sacrifice due process at the altar of public pressure,” Tongol said, adding that the ruling proved the Senate was correct in choosing “constitutional prudence” over demands for immediate proceedings.

The former spokesperson also blasted at legal experts and critics who earlier argued that the Constitution required the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court.

Tongol specifically cited constitutional framer Rene Sarmiento and former SC associate justice Antonio Carpio, both of whom had publicly argued that the term “forthwith” meant proceedings should begin without delay.

According to Tongol, the SC ruling rejected what he described as a “breakneck” interpretation of the constitutional provision and instead recognized the Senate’s discretion to consider practical circumstances, including legislative recesses and procedural preparations.

“They were wrong, and the Supreme Court has proven them wrong. As we consistently maintained, the Senate, as a co-equal branch of government, must be afforded the discretion to prepare a fair and orderly trial,” he said.

Tongol further pressed said the Senate’s position relied on jurisprudence, including Fischer vs. Ambler and New Masonic Temple Association Inc. vs. Alfonso, which interpreted the term “forthwith” as flexible depending on the circumstances of a case.

“We stood on the wisdom of long-standing jurisprudence—from "Fischer vs. Ambler" to "New Masonic Temple Association Inc. vs. Alfonso"—which dictates that "forthwith" is elastic and always modified by the circumstances of each case, such as a legislative recess,” he said.

Tongol also invoked the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada, saying the Senate then adopted the view of late senator Miriam Defensor Santiago that impeachment proceedings should be conducted with “circumspection.”

He said the latest ruling protects impeachment proceedings from being “weaponized through unrealistic timelines” and reinforces the Senate’s independence as a co-equal branch of government.

“I am gratified that the judiciary has provided this clarity,” Tongol said. “It validates that our measured, deliberate approach was legally sound all along.”

On 29 April, the SC unanimously upheld the Senate’s discretion in handling impeachment proceedings.

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking to compel the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court for Vice President Sara Duterte.

The SC ruled that a petition for mandamus could not force the Senate, a coequal branch of government, to perform its constitutional functions unless there was a grave abuse of discretion.

It added that the Constitution does not impose a fixed deadline for the Senate to begin an impeachment trial, allowing lawmakers a reasonable time for preparations.

The SC also found the petition moot, noting that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte had already been nullified in earlier rulings, leaving no valid impeachment case for the Senate to try.