President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. can convene a special session of Congress to assemble the Senate as an impeachment court without explicitly indicating that the move is intended to fast-track the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, according to former Senate President Franklin Drilon.
In an interview on Wednesday, Drilon addressed speculations that Marcos is distancing himself from discussions surrounding Duterte’s looming impeachment trial, particularly the debate over its timeline.
“When he calls a special session, he doesn't have to give any reason. Congress is obliged by constitutional duty to start with it. And when the session begins, the first thing that shall be discussed is the articles of impeachment,” Drilon, a former Justice Secretary, said in Filipino.
He stressed that once Marcos calls for a special session, the Senate is automatically compelled to convene as an impeachment court and cannot defy the directive, as the President holds the legal authority to issue such an order.
According to Drilon, the Senate cannot act on its own discretion to constitute itself as an impeachment tribunal unless Marcos formally orders it. The President’s authority to “call a special session at any time” is enshrined in Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution. However, Marcos has stated that he would only do so upon the Senate’s request.
Meanwhile, Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, who has been criticized for allegedly stalling the impeachment process, maintained that the upper chamber will not convene as an impeachment court without Marcos’ go-signal.
The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on 5 February, the last day of session before Congress adjourned for the mid-term election campaign.
Although the Senate received the articles of impeachment on the same day, they were not referred to the plenary due to time constraints.
Drilon explained that if the House had transmitted the articles of impeachment at least a day before Congress adjourned, the Senate could have convened as an impeachment court anytime during the recess, even without Marcos’ intervention.
Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro previously hinted that Marcos is unlikely to call a special session, citing “intrigues” suggesting that Duterte’s impeachment was orchestrated by the President himself amid their ongoing political rift.
Since the impeachment gained momentum, multiple petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court (SC), either seeking to block the Senate from proceeding with the trial or urging the chamber to act swiftly on the case.
On 18 February, Duterte petitioned the SC for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Senate from taking action, arguing that the articles of impeachment were constitutionally flawed. She is being represented by the Fortun, Narvasa, and Salazar Law Firm.
Drilon cautioned that the Supreme Court should avoid interfering in the impeachment process, as it has no authority over the Senate, which is a co-equal branch of government.
“The Supreme Court should not interfere in order to avoid the Senate defying the Supreme Court...But that is up to the Supreme Court, no one can tell them not to do so,” he 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. A total of 215 lawmakers signed the articles of impeachment against her.
For Duterte to be convicted, the Senate will need a two-thirds vote, or at least 16 out of its 24 members. A conviction would result in her perpetual disqualification from holding any public office.
House prosecutors and Escudero have clashed over the latter’s reluctance to expedite the trial. The Senate President has maintained that the proceedings will only commence when the 20th Congress convenes after 12 new senators take office.
However, retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, warned that the House’s impeachment efforts would be rendered futile if the Senate fails to establish jurisdiction over the case before the new Congress takes over.
Critics speculate that the Senate’s hesitation to act on the impeachment trial is politically motivated, with re-electionist senators allegedly playing it safe ahead of the mid-term elections.