Senator Ping Lacson on Saturday vowed to push back against efforts to prevent the Senate from convening as an impeachment court for the expected trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, following criticism over his remarks on possible resistance from senators.

Lacson, who belongs to the majority bloc, earlier suggested that the Senate may not convene as an impeachment court should the majority of the senators vote against it. 

This, despite the Constitution commanding the Senate to proceed “forthwith” with the trial once it receives the articles of impeachment from the House of Representatives.

Lacson subsequently clarified, however, that his statement should not be construed as a deliberate refusal, explaining that the Senate, as a collegial body, would rule by the majority's consensus on convening.

“I did not say I will not oppose and vote against any motion to stop or delay the convening of the Senate into an impeachment court, if it comes to that,” he said. 

"If this constitutional issue arises, the Supreme Court may intervene to compel the Senate to perform our constitutional duty," the lawmaker added.

Nonetheless, he emphasized that his position on the convening of the court has nothing to do with how he would vote on whether to convict or acquit the VP.

“I will always be guided by the evidence to be presented and nothing else," he stressed.

Legal luminaries, such as former Supreme Court associate justice Antonio Carpio, argued that the Senate is not permitted to proceed with the trial by motion, as it’s mandatory under the Constitution regardless of the majority’s position.

“Even if the majority will say, we don't want a trial, we will dismiss this right away, they cannot do that because [the Constitution states] trial shall proceed,” he pointed out. 

Lawyer Tranquil Salvador III, law dean and a former member of the defense team of the late SC chief justice Renato Corona during his impeachment trial, also warned that the Senate risks committing “grave abuse of discretion” if it resists convening as favored by the majority senators.

He argued that the Senate is mandated to do so, regardless of the voting.

An associate dean and a constitutional law professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman, lawyer Paolo Tamese, also shared the same view. 

He stated that the Senate is duty-bound to act on any impeachment cases, which could be initiated by convening as a court. He warned that the Senate’s potential defiance may prompt new Supreme Court petitions and could derail the looming trial of Duterte, as was seen last year.

Lacson’s earlier remarks were triggered by Senator Robin Padilla’s statement that the minority—mostly Duterte allies—would oppose impeachment proceedings in the Senate, including the Senate's convening as a court and the trial. 

Lacson said this no longer came as a surprise to the majority and warned that senators who joined the minority would owe the public an explanation for defying their constitutional mandate.

Last year, in the previous Congress, the minority bloc mounted a similar effort, but it failed to stop the Senate from convening as an impeachment court.

Still, no trial proper was held in June because the Senate returned the articles of impeachment to the House, which further delayed the trial. 

Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled in July that the impeachment case against Duterte was unconstitutional and void for violating the one-year bar rule. 

Recall that the House of Representatives first impeached Duterte on 5 February last year, though the trial in the Senate did not commence forthwith since Congress went on a three-month break for the election campaign.

Senate President Tito Sotto earlier vowed that the chamber would “act with dispatch” by convening as an impeachment court a day after it receives the articles of impeachment from the House.

However, following the recent SC ruling, which defines “forthwith” in the context of impeachment as “a reasonable period of time," and not instantly, Sotto softened his stance and said that the trial proper would commence in due course.