Ex-spox: SC ‘forthwith’ clarification backs Senate impeachment timeline

MANILA, Philippines – The clarification of the Supreme Court on the term “forthwith” pertaining to the timeline of proceeding with an impeachment proved the critics of the Senate wrong, former Senate impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Regie Tongol said.

This came after the SC’s decision on Wednesday dismissed a petition to legally compel the Senate to immediately try Vice President Sara Duterte as an impeachment court.

“We refused to sacrifice due process at the altar of public pressure. The Supreme Court’s near-unanimous decision proves that under the leadership of then-Senate President Chiz Escudero, the Senate was right to choose constitutional prudence over the reckless haste demanded by so-called experts,” Tongol said in a statement on Wednesday evening.

READ: ‘Forthwith’ explained: SC rules on impeachment trial speed

The first articles of impeachment against Duterte were transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025 under the leadership of Escudero who decided against proceeding during recess.

This decision received criticism from several individuals, citing that the Constitutional command of “forthwith proceed” meant to act “right away, immediately.”

“The hysteria reached such a fever pitch that critics even resorted to name-calling and made merchandise out of the word “forthwith” to mock the Senate’s deliberate pace… They were wrong, and the Supreme Court has proven them wrong,” Tongol pressed.

He then reaffirmed the decision of the Senate in 2025 acting on the jurisprudence that “dictates “forthwith” is elastic and always modified by the circumstances of each case, such as a legislative recess.”

“Our measured, deliberate approach was legally sound all along, ensuring that future proceedings will be guided by reason, deliberation, and the unwavering pursuit of accountability without undue delay,” Tongol pressed.

Moreover, the SC’s ruling, Tongol said, is a win for constitutional stability.

“It protects the impeachment process from being weaponized through unrealistic timelines and reinforces the Senate’s independence in fulfilling its role as a high court, proving that the institution cannot be bullied by public pressure or rushed by the misinterpretations of pundits,” he noted. /mr