Is the Philippine Senate‘s role in impeachment trials truly “self-executory,” bypassing the need for special sessions? The debate raises critical questions about the balance of powers and the swiftness of justice. The assertion that the Senate’s function in an impeachment trial is a special and “self-executory” mandate, distinct from its legislative duties, has ignited a national conversation. Atty. Christian Monsod, a key architect of the 1987 Constitution, made this assertion as the nation follows the impeachment proceedings against Vice President sara Duterte. His comments, delivered at a forum at Adamson University, emphasized the importance of a swift resolution to protect the public from officials “who do not deserve office.”

The core of the debate revolves around whether the Senate can convene as an impeachment court without a special session called by the President. Monsod argued there is no such requirement, stating that the legislative break is merely a “recess that can be terminated” for “something that is vrey importent given to the Senate to undertake.” This underscores the importance and urgency of the impeachment process as defined by the Constitution.

According to Monsod, the constitutional requirement to convene the impeachment court “forthwith” implies doing so “immediately.” He stressed the importance of a timely resolution, stating:

Therefore, the faster it is resolved the better because one of the main purposes of the impeachment proceeding is to protect the right, protect people from the wrong officials who do not deserve office. So the faster the proceedings go, the better for the people.
Atty.Christian Monsod

Monsod clarified that special mandates granted to the Senate by the Constitution, such as convening the impeachment court, are “self-executory” and not subject to provisions governing the Senate’s legislative functions. This distinction is crucial in understanding the senate’s obligations during impeachment proceedings.

Article XI Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states:

In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
Article XI Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution

Monsod emphasized that the provision allowing the President to call a special session pertains to the Senate’s legislative function and does not apply to the “self-executory” mandate of convening as an impeachment court. He asserted,”It is indeed addressed to the Senate,they have the duty and the obligation to obey the constitution.”

However, Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero has maintained that the impeachment court will only convene when the Senate is in session, emphasizing that he is proceeding with the impeachment process “legally, constitutionally, and in accordance with law.” Escudero released a tentative timeline on Thursday, setting the start of the impeachment trial of Duterte on July 30.

In a letter to his colleagues dated February 24,Escudero explained his rationale for insisting that the impeachment trial commence while Congress is in session,rather than during a special session. he cited jurisprudence and precedents to support his interpretation of the word “forthwith” in the context of impeachment cases under the 1987 Constitution.

Escudero stated in his letter:

As the head of this institution, I am most cognizant of the Constitutional mandate that vests in the Senate the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. This is an unusual duty that should be approached with all due caution and prudence,not to mention adequate planning
Senate president Francis “Chiz” Escudero

Escudero also referenced the position of the late former Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago during the endorsement of the impeachment of then-President Joseph ejecito Estrada.Santiago argued that “while the Senate must proceed ‘forthwith’, it must do so with circumspection.”

Escudero further noted Santiago’s assertion that the constitutional provision requiring the Senate to “proceed forthwith” should be interpreted in conjunction with article XI, Section 3(8) of the Constitution, which states that “the Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this Section.” He highlighted that the Senate at the time adopted Santiago’s position and only issued the summons after the resolution on the rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials was adopted.

The House impeached Duterte on February 5, with over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint. The Articles of impeachment were transmitted to the senate the same day,but the upper chamber adjourned without addressing the case.Duterte has filed a Supreme Court petition challenging the validity of the impeachment complaint.

Several petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court regarding the impeachment proceedings. Lawyers from mindanao and other groups have requested the SC to halt the trial, alleging that the complaint is defective. Another petition seeks to compel the Senate to convene as an impeachment court immediately.

Expert analysis: Decoding the Constitutional Conundrum

To further understand the complexities surrounding this issue, we spoke with Professor Ramirez, a renowned expert on Philippine constitutional law.

Interviewer: Professor Ramirez,welcome. Your expertise on philippine constitutional law is renowned. The recent impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte have ignited a fierce debate surrounding the Senate’s mandate. Could you clarify the concept of a “self-executory” mandate in this context?

Professor Ramirez: the term “self-executory,” as applied to the Senate’s impeachment power, implies that the Constitution itself directly empowers the Senate to act without needing explicit authorization from another branch of government. The Constitution outlines the Senate’s role in impeachment trials, and this role becomes active upon the filing of valid articles of impeachment. This contrasts with other legislative functions that ofen require a formal session call by the President. To answer the question directly, it’s this automatic activation, this constitutionally-enshrined authority, that’s described as “self-executory.”

Interviewer: atty. Monsod argues that the Senate’s impeachment function is separate from its legislative duties. Is this a valid distinction?

Professor Ramirez: Absolutely. Atty. Monsod correctly highlights a crucial distinction. the Senate wears two distinct hats: as a legislative body making laws and as an impeachment court dispensing justice. While the legislative functions require formal sessions, the impeachment function is a unique constitutional obligation. Think of it like a judge receiving a case – the judge doesn’t need a special court session summons to start hearing a case; it’s their constitutional mandate. This inherent authority is what sets the impeachment process apart.

Interviewer: Senate President Escudero maintains the Senate must be in session to convene as an impeachment court. How do we reconcile these differing viewpoints?

Professor Ramirez: The core of the disagreement lies in the interpretation of “forthwith.” While Monsod emphasizes the immediate nature of the constitutional mandate, Escudero’s interpretation considers existing Senate rules and procedures. He argues “forthwith” doesn’t mean disregarding established processes entirely. It’s a matter of procedural interpretation: does “forthwith” override all other Senate rules, or does it demand a prompt but orderly trial? This conflict reveals the intricate legal and procedural nuances inherent in constitutional interpretation.

Interviewer: The 1987 Constitution states the Senate trial “shall forthwith proceed.” What does this phrase legally signify and how does its interpretation impact the timeline of an impeachment trial?

Professor Ramirez: The wording “forthwith” demands promptness and immediacy. It doesn’t mean instantaneous action, disregarding all possible procedural delays. It implies a swift transition to the impeachment trial after the Articles of Impeachment are filed, yet doesn’t negate the need for reasonable planning and due process. This implies a balance between speed and procedural fairness. The precise interpretation affects how quickly the Senate should organize itself and initiates the impeachment court’s proceedings.

Interviewer: What are the broader implications of this legal debate on the separation of powers and checks and balances in the Philippines?

Professor Ramirez: This debate considerably impacts the delicate balance of power. This scenario highlights the potential conflicts between different branches, in this case, the Executive and the Legislative. The “self-executory” argument, if accepted, might seemingly reduce the Executive’s influence on the impeachment process, a crucial check on executive power. Though, the Senate’s adherence to its own established rules within this process also serves as a vital internal check, ensuring the orderly functioning of the judicial branch.

Interviewer: What recommendations can you offer for resolving such future constitutional disputes surrounding the impeachment process?

Professor Ramirez: To avoid such conflicts, clearer, more unambiguous constitutional language is beneficial. The development of a thorough set of rules specifically addressing the impeachment process’s procedural aspects, agreed upon by all relevant branches and approved by the Supreme Court, would also offer greater clarity while ensuring transparency and fairness.

Interviewer: Thank you, Professor Ramirez, for providing such valuable and evergreen insights into this vital aspect of Philippine Constitutional Law.This discussion has shed light on the complexities surrounding the Senate’s role during impeachment proceedings.