Did they change rules? Enrile says ‘forthwith’ easy to understand

Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile, in a sit-down interview with INQUIRER.net on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, said if the rules on impeachment trials remain the same, the Senate may have failed its job. — Photo by Ryan Leagogo

MANILA, Philippines — With the Senate hounded by complaints on the delay in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile said he is not sure if the rules on such proceedings have been changed already and allow such an impasse.

But if the rules stay the same, then Enrile believes the Senate failed to do its job.

In a sit-down interview with INQUIRER.net on Tuesday, Enrile said that when he was at the Senate, the chamber quickly tackled articles of impeachment sent to them, as the 1987 Constitution states that trial must proceed forthwith if one-thirds of all House of Representatives members file an impeachment complaint.

With 215 lawmakers filing the impeachment last February 5, and with one-third of all 306 House members being 102, the one-third requirement was achieved.

“The House did its function, they conducted hearings, they found something wrong, you may not agree with them, but they found that, and they submitted it to the Senate for resolution. The Senate is supposed to do its job with reasonable speed, for the Constitution says forthwith. Anybody can understand that English (word), and they did not do it, they tarried, they dilly-dallied,” Enrile said.

“Worse, they turned it back to the House and commanded the House which is improper and unparliamentary to do something that they have done. You must give a presumption of regularity to the other house, you cannot demand or command the other house which is your co-equal,” he added.

Enrile — who participated in the impeachment trial of former president Joseph Estrada as a senator-judge, and then as presiding officer in the trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona — said that the delay in the impeachment proceedings and the remand of articles is without precedence.

“I do not know whether they changed the rule. The Constitution is very clear, that you must forthwith try and decide — of course when you say try, you must hear the evidence and then decide whether to acquit or convict,” he said.

“I don’t know whether they have changed the rules. We never had the experience or precedent like what they have done now to return the impeachment complaints to the impeaching authority which is the House of Representatives,” he added.

Enrile explained that during the Estrada trial, the complaint filed by the House before the Senate was forwarded to the Senate committee on rules, calendared for first reading, before being sent back to the committee so that senator-judges can formulate rules and conduct preliminary processes in preparation for the hearing.

The report submitted by the committee on rules were then referred back to the plenary for second reading and “at that point,” Enrile said, “the notices have been sent out to the prosecutors, to the person impeached, to his lawyers, and then in the case of Erap (Estrada), to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”

For the Corona case, which the current Senate is using as a precedent, the articles were brought to the plenary for hearing. Enrile said that while there were gaps during the hearings, the trial went on.

“I do not know whether they have changed the process, but in those two cases, when the impeachment complaint was sent by the House as an impeaching body under the Constitution, the process was the secretary-general of the Senate sends it to the committee on rules which is actually headed by the Majority Floor Leader, and on the first calendar day, the committee on rules places the impeachment complaint in the calendar of business for first reading,” he said.

“And during that first reading, the plenary session of the Senate sends it to the proper committee to conduct the necessary preliminary processes to prepare for the trial and hearing, and decision of the senate-jurors,” he added.

Enrile also said that the delays seem to reflect that Duterte does not want to face an impeachment trial.

After Duterte was impeached last February 5, the House forwarded the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Trial however did not start immediately as the articles were not taken up during the Senate plenary session before the 19th Congress adjourned its session for the election break.

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

Then last May 23, Senate President Francis Escudero sent a letter to House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez inviting the House prosecution panel to the Senate plenary on June 2, to present the articles of impeachment.

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

However, last Thursday, 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 might not push through after draft Senate resolutions seeking the dismissal of the articles were floated.

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

Finally, on June 10, the Senate convened as an impeachment court. However, on the same day, 18 senator-judges voted in favor of a motion introduced by Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano, which effectively sends back the articles of impeachment back to the House.

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

Until their questions are addressed, prosecution team member and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro said the House would defer acceptance of the returned articles. She however clarified that their actions are not in defiance of the Senate order, but is just 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.

READ: House impeaches VP Sara Duterte, fast-tracking transmittal to Senate 

The following are the articles of impeachment sent by the House:

Article I: Betrayal of public trust, commission of high crimes due to her threats to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez
Article II: Betrayal of public trust and graft and corruption due to misuse of CFs within the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Office of the Vice President
Article III: Betrayal of public trust and bribery within the DepEd
Article IV: Violation of the 1987 Constitution and betrayal of public trust due to unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets
Article V: Commission of high crimes, due to involvement in extrajudicial killings in the drug war
Article VI: Betrayal of public trust due to alleged destabilization plots and high crimes of sedition and insurrection
Article VII: Betrayal of acts due to her unbecoming conduct as Vice President /das