The Manila Times
(UPDATE) SENATE President Vicente Sotto III said he will act “forthwith” if the House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. The senator said he has been reviewing the rules of court and the Senate rules on impeachment so that he would be ready for any eventuality. The Senate serves as the impeachment court to try and decide on any complaint to unseat the president and vice president and other impeachable officers. “I will act on it with dispatch. Definitely forthwith. I know what the meaning of forthwith is,” Sotto said in a press briefing. “As soon as the Senate receives it, I will inform the Senate and refer it to the Committee on Rules,” he said. “We have to convene as an impeachment court. So, technically, we may convene by May 4. That’s just two weeks away. So, we may be able to do that,” Sotto said. The Senate chief recently hosted a dinner with some fellow senators to discuss the impeachment proceedings against Duterte before the House’s Committee on Justice. He implored fellow senator-judges “to be impartial in and out of the court,” as some of them are allied with Duterte. “In the discharge of duties, a judge shall not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.” Sotto said he also advised fellow senators to brush up on the rules of court, which cover the official set of procedural rules that govern how Duterte’s case would be filed, heard and decided. “We can’t be fumbling, because there may be issues the presiding officer will raise to the body, or objections from members that we should know how to properly address,” Sotto said. “We are simply preparing just in case. Since the possibility is already there, it is part of the Senate’s responsibility. We are empowered to do so, and the relevant offices within the Senate are likewise authorized to prepare,” he said. “We are merely getting ready to ensure we are not caught off guard or forced into a rush should the House of Representatives transmit the Articles of Impeachment. If no such articles are sent, then that is well and good, and we will return our focus to legislation,” Sotto said. Another petition Meanwhile, petitioners challenging the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte returned to the Supreme Court, questioning what they described as “deeply irregular” developments during an April 14 hearing conducted by the House of Representatives. The petitioners — led by lawyers Israelito Torreon, Resci Rizada-Nolasco, and Jimmy Bondoc — argued that the House Committee on Justice anchored its proceedings on testimony and a supplemental affidavit from Ramil Madriaga that were not part of the original impeachment complaints. They said only Madriaga’s earlier affidavit dated Nov. 29, 2025, had been included in the complaints when these were filed and referred. The petitioners said the supplemental affidavit introduced new accusations, expanded factual claims, and additional narratives that went beyond the original submissions, yet lawmakers allegedly treated these as if they had long been part of the official record. They contended that this constituted more than a clarification of existing allegations, describing it instead as an improper expansion of the factual basis of the proceedings. This, they said, violated principles of notice, fairness, due process and orderly pleading. The petitioners also questioned the committee’s approval of a subpoena for former senator Antonio Trillanes IV. They argued that the subpoena was based solely on a footnote in one of the complaints referencing a 2016 news article about Trillanes’ public statements on alleged Duterte bank accounts. The filing stressed that the cited article was neither a sworn statement nor competent evidence of the allegations it contained.In addition, the petition challenged a motion directing the Anti-Money Laundering Council to produce reports and documents on alleged covered and suspicious transactions involving Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, spanning nearly two decades.The petitioners argued that the directive lacked a clear anchor in specific allegations of ultimate fact regarding supposed unexplained wealth. They said the move effectively sought to obtain evidence outside the “four corners” of the complaint, characterizing it as a sweeping attempt to search for incriminating material. They further maintained that the committee could not bypass safeguards under the Anti-Money Laundering Act and bank secrecy laws through a legislative directive alone. Taken together, the petitioners said the developments during the April 14 hearing showed that the proceedings had moved away from a threshold determination of the sufficiency of the impeachment complaints. Instead, they alleged, the process had turned into a “fishing expedition” aimed at generating new material and accusations to support what they described as a constitutionally deficient case. Another survey Meanwhile, the latest Pahayag survey showed Filipino voters remain sharply divided over the impeachment of Duterte. The nationwide poll found that 51 percent of respondents support impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte, while 33 percent oppose them and 16 percent are unaware of the issue. In contrast, 48 percent of voters opposed dismissing impeachment complaints against President Marcos, compared with 29 percent who supported dismissal and 23 percent who were unaware. The findings were at odds with the Tugon ng Masa survey, released by OCTA Research in mid-April that found 69 percent of Filipinos saying the vice president should face an impeachment trial.
Go to News Site