Charter tells Senate to ‘try’ not ‘hear’ impeachment – prosecution

Vice President Sara Duterte makes a speech to mark the 127th Independence Day on Thursday, June 12, 2025. — Screengrab from  her Facebook page

MANILA, Philippines — The Constitution explicitly mandates the Senate to “try” and not merely “hear” impeachment cases submitted to them, prosecution spokesperson Atty. Antonio Audie Bucoy said on Tuesday.

In a press briefing after he was introduced to members of the media, Bucoy was asked if the Senate could outright dismiss the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte without a trial — or through a motion that may be raised by parties involved.

In response, Bucoy said that Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Constitution states that the Senate “shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment,” emphasizing that the basic law calls for a trial, and not merely a hearing of arguments.

“According to the Constitution, the power of the Senate is to try and decide the case — to try. Second, the word used by the Constitution is that the trial shall ‘forthwith’ proceed. Trial. The Constitution did not say that the power is to hear and decide,” Bucoy said in a mix of Filipino and English.

“The legal term ‘to hear’ has wider coverage.  The legal term ‘to hear’ means to ascertain whether or not the articles or the complaints are worth pursuing. In other words, is there a basis to the case? The Constitution does not say to hear, it says to try and decide. That is how exact the language of the Constitution was regarding the process of impeachment,” he added.

Bucoy also stressed that only parties — and not members of the court, like Senator-Judge Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa — can make motions.

“That is not in the Constitution. That is betrayal. That is not in accordance with the Constitution because, first — I’m assuming you are referring to the motion to dismiss stated by Sen. Bato dela Rosa — judges do not make motions. Only parties make motions,” he said.

“According to the Constitution, if the articles of impeachment have been transmitted, we should immediately proceed to a trial. And the writ of summons should be served so that the accused can give an answer. Not a motion to dismiss. If the accused is not allowed to make a motion to dismiss, then more so for the judge, right?” he added.

“The grounds mentioned by Senator dela Rosa, these are the same grounds that were raised by Duterte’s lawyers before the Supreme Court. So what happened was that Senator Dela Rosa seemed to act like a defense counsel,” he went on.

After Duterte was impeached on February 5, the House immediately forwarded the articles of impeachment to the Senate, as the Constitution states that “trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed” if one-third of the House files the impeachment complaint.

A total of 215 lawmakers filed and signed the fourth impeachment complaint, satisfying the one-third requirement, which is 102 of all 306 House members.

However, the trial did not start immediately as the articles were not taken up at the Senate plenary before the 19th Congress adjourned its session for the election break.

February 5 was the last session day for the Senate and the House.

After the elections, there were hopes that the trial would start, especially after Senate President Francis Escudero sent a letter to House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez on May 23, inviting the House prosecution panel to present the articles of impeachment before the Senate plenary on June 2.

Escudero said back then that on June 3, the day after, the Senate will convene as an impeachment court.

However, on May 29, Escudero sent another letter to Romualdez informing that the reading of the articles will be rescheduled to June 11.

READ: Presentation of impeachment articles vs Sara Duterte moved to June 11

But even before the prosecution team got to visit the Senate, there were concerns that a Senate trial on Duterte’s impeachment trial might not push through after draft Senate resolutions seeking the dismissal of the articles were floated.  Dela Rosa admitted that one of the draft resolutions came from his office.

READ: Lacson: Draft reso to junk impeach bid vs Sara Duterte circulating

After questions about whether the trial would proceed, the Senate convened as an impeachment court on June 10. But on the same day, 18 senator-judges voted in favor of a motion introduced by Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano, which effectively sent the articles of impeachment back to the House.

Cayetano’s motion was an amendment to the motion to dismiss raised by dela Rosa.

With the remand, the prosecution team announced that they would file a motion to seek clarification from the Senate regarding its decision to send back the articles of impeachment.

Until their questions are addressed, a prosecution team member, Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro, said the House would defer acceptance of the returned articles. She clarified, however, that their actions were not in defiance of the Senate order, but were just borne out of a desire to clarify possible issues.

READ: House to seek clarity on Senate’s remand before receiving case

Duterte’s impeachment was hinged on different issues, like allegations of confidential fund misuse within her offices, which were uncovered during the hearing of the House committee on good government and public accountability, and threats to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Romualdez assassinated. /atm