Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero clarified on Monday, June 2, that while the reading of the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte is set on June 11, it is still the decision of the Senate in plenary whether or not the Upper Chamber will formally convene as an impeachment court.

In a press conference, Escudero said he initially set June 11 for the reading of the Articles of Impeachment in line with Senate impeachment rules, which give the Senate President the authority to schedule such matters.

However, he stressed that the Senate plenary remains the final authority, and it may vote to uphold, modify, or reject that date.

“In the natural course, yes, ‘yon ang dapat mangyari (that is what should happen),” Escudero said when asked if he personally believes the Senate should convene as an impeachment court.

“Unless, as I have said, may mag-motion, may mag-object, mag-botohan (someone moves to object, and it gets voted on). In the end, plenary will decide,” he added.

Escudero also emphasized that despite President Marcos' earlier public statements expressing disinterest in pursuing Duterte’s impeachment, the President has not issued any directive to influence the Senate's actions on the matter.

“Walang sinabi ang Pangulo o utos ang Pangulo kaugnay d’yan (No directive was issued by the President regarding that),” Escudero said.

He added that the Senate’s current schedule was based on the priority legislative agenda discussed during the LEDAC (Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council) meeting, and not on any presidential intervention.

Escudero reiterated that no single senator—not even the Senate President—can dictate the outcome of the Senate’s actions regarding impeachment. He cited precedents in the impeachment cases of former President Joseph Estrada and former Chief Justice Renato Corona, where the Senate adjusted the convening of the impeachment court based on collective decisions.

“The plenary of the Senate is the supreme body… it gets to decide anything and everything,” Escudero said, adding that past impeachment trials have shown flexibility in setting timelines, depending on the Upper Chamber's consensus.

He acknowledged voices within the Senate who may question the urgency or basis for proceeding before the 19th Congress ends, particularly since this impeachment complaint may or may not bridge into the next Congress, which is a rare and politically complex scenario.

While June 11 remains the target date for the formal reading of the Articles of Impeachment, Escudero admitted it is not “nakataga sa bato” (set in stone).

“Nakataga siya sa bato in the sense na ‘yun na ‘yong panahon na darating ang mga miyembro ng Kamara dito (It's set in stone in the sense that that's the day when the members of the House will be coming here),” Escudero said, noting that it's the last session day of the 19th Congress.

“Pero kung magdesisyon ang plenary na hindi mag-convene sa June 11 (But if the plenary on June 11 decides not to convene), in theory, yes [it may not push through].”

Still, he expressed doubt that such a scenario will occur, unless there is a clear and justified reason that convinces the majority of senators to defer or cancel the impeachment trial. Yet he acknowledged that nothing stops senators from making such a motion.

There is still no guarantee the impeachment case will be carried over to the 20th Congress if the Senate fails to convene as an impeachment court before it adjourns.

This means that if the Senate fails to act before adjournment and a trial does not commence, there is a possibility that a new impeachment complaint may have to be refiled in the next Congress, subject to the same procedures and political dynamics.

With only days remaining before the Senate adjourns, all eyes now turn to June 11, where the fate of the impeachment complaint hangs on whether the Senate chooses to proceed. The decision will ultimately rest with the majority of the senators in plenary, regardless of external pressures or political endorsements.

Despite speculation and political undertones, Escudero maintained that the process would remain grounded on institutional rules and precedent, and ultimately, the will of the chamber.

“We will decide all of these things in accordance with what the plenary wants and in accordance with our rules,” he concluded.