(Speech delivered by Majority Floor Leader Francis “TOL” N. Tolentino on June 2, 2025.)

Mr. Senate President, esteemed colleagues: I speak today on a matter of constitutional and institutional responsibility.

The Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte had long been transmitted to this chamber 117 days ago. Yet, the impeachment trial - a process that, under the Constitution, must commence "forthwith" upon receipt-has been delayed for several months, and is now set to begin only on June 11, two days before the Sine Die Adjournment of the 19th Congress on June 13, or even the lapse of the 19th Congress on June 30.

This timing raises serious constitutional concerns.

The command of the Constitution is clear: Article XI, Section 3(4) provides that "the Senate shall proceed to trial, forthwith" after receiving the Articles of Impeachment. The term "forthwith" is not a suggestion. It is a legal imperative that connotes immediacy, trial after months of inaction undermines not only this directive but also the due process rights of the respondent and the integrity of the Senate as an Impeachment Court.

The delay caused by this apparent failure to abide by a clear constitutional directive to proceed to trial forthwith has left the Senate of the 19th Congress with barely several days from today to complete the proceedings and render judgment before Congress closes. The timeline is tight and difficult.

1) The Philippine Senate, as it is defined and constituted under the 1987 Constitution, is not a continuing body as regards its business “Negotium non continuatum.” Some legal luminaries cite US legislative precedents allowing impeachment trials to span two Congresses. But they overlook a key structural difference. In the United States Senate, a third of the total membership of 100 are elected every two years, thus, at any point in time, there are at least 67 US Senators in office. On this account, the US Senate can be considered as a continuing body or as an institution with a continuing business. In the Philippine Senate under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, eight Senators are elected every two years such that at least 16 Senators, or two-thirds of the total membership, are in office at any point in time. As such, the Philippine Senate under the 1935 Constitution can also be regarded as a continuing body with continuing business similar to the US Senate. This was the gist of the ruling in Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29 (1950), a case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court under the 1935 Constitution.

The Philippine Senate under the 1987 Constitution, on the other hand, was constituted using a different formulation where one-half of the total membership, or 12 Senators, are elected every three years. Thus, only 12 Senators remain in office at any point in time, a number which obviously cannot constitute a quorum to conduct legislative business as required by the Constitution. On this basis, the present Senate cannot be considered as a continuing body in the same way as the US Senate and the Philippine Senate under the 1935 Constitution. This position is supported by Justice Antonio Carpio, expressed in his separate dissenting and concurring opinion in the case of Neri vs. Senate Committee on ccountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643, Sept. 4, 2008.

2) Can the present Senate of the 19th Congress transfer its jurisdiction to the Senate of the 20th Congress to hear and decide the instant impeachment case should it be unable to complete its work by noon of June 30, 2025? This representation submits that it cannot. To allow the 19th Congress to transfer an impeachment case to the 20th Congress, is an ultra vires act of conferring jurisdiction. Foremost, the Philippine Senate under the 1987 Constitution is clearly not a continuing body, unlike the US Senate and the Philippine Senate under the 1935 Constitution, therefore, its jurisdiction to hear and decide this impeachment case cannot be carried over to the next Senate. Such jurisdiction ceases by noon of June 30, 2025. We cannot cure any jurisdictional lapses or defects by circumventing the Constitution itself.

3) The power to hear and decide the present Impeachment vs. Vice President Sara Duterte filed by the Lower House of the 19th Congress is vested in the present Senate of the 19th Congress itself. Such jurisdiction is not transferable to the Senate of the 20th Congress. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the present Senate to hear and decide the instant impeachment case is time-bound, it can only be exercised until noon of June 30, 2025. Thus, there can therefore be a functional dismissal because of “MOOTNESS” by operation of the Constitution.

4) In Neri, the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, clarified the concept of the Senate as a continuing body. Speaking for the majority of the Court, Madam Justice Teresita Leonard De Castro opined that the Senate as an institution can be considered continuing because it is not dissolved as an entity with each national election or change in the composition of its members. However, in the conduct of its day-to-day business, the Senate of each Congress acts separately and independently of the Senate of the Congress before it. In this regard, the Senate is clearly not a continuing body, as in fact, our Rules as presently crafted, prescribes that all pending matters and proceedings, including unpassed bills and legislative investigations, shall terminate upon the expiration of one Congress (Rule 44, Sec. 123). This ruling was reiterated ten years later in the case of Balag vs. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018, via a majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo.

5) Finally, this representation adopts the firm position that if each Senate of every Congress is separate and independent of each other, and that each Senate closes its legislative work and related proceedings at the time specified by the Constitution, then this limitation should equally apply to other constitutional assignments such as the authority to hear and decide impeachment cases. Even canons from another jurisdiction which we recognize, affirm the same:

Jefferson’s Manual

“Business unfinished at the end of a Congress does not carry over to the next Congress.”

As Senator-Judges in this impeachment case, therefore, it is our sacred constitutional duty to complete this work on or before the mandated deadline.

Since it appears that we cannot accomplish the same, on account of the delay in starting the trial or other relevant reasons, this Senate, to sit as an impeachment court, has no choice but to terminate the proceedings by virtue of this constitutional deadline and consider this case as dismissed.

Mr. President, kahit anong gawing pilit, hindi maitatawid — lalo na’t kung lalabag sa Saligang Batas.

This practice ensures procedural integrity and reflects the principle that each Congress operates independently.

Impeachment is a proceeding tied to the mandate and lifespan of the Congress that initiated it. It does not continue automatically into the next Congress.

Let this manifestation be entered into the Official journal and records of this Senate to sit as an impeachment court. I make this stand in faithful defense of constitutional order, procedural fairness, and the institutional dignity of this chamber.

Maraming Salamat, Mr. President. Maraming Salamat, mga kasama.