Taxpayer asks SC: Define ‘forthwith’

MANILA, Philippines — If the definition of “forthwith” is not clear enough in the dictionary or in the cacophony of opinions from lawmakers and legal experts, then the Supreme Court (SC) may be able to provide the answer once and for all and end the debate over the scheduling of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a petition for declaratory relief, Las Piñas congressional candidate John Barry Tayam asked the SC to step in and interpret the term “forthwith” as well as determine if the rights of the Vice President were being violated with the months-long wait for her impeachment trial.

Tayam said he filed the petition as a “taxpayer and citizen.”

He cited Article XI Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

Tayam said Senate President Francis Escudero, his fellow lawmakers and some legal experts presented varying interpretations of the term “forthwith,” with many of them insisting that a trial should commence immediately.

Based on a timetable prepared by Escudero, the impeachment trial of Duterte will begin on July 30.

In his petition, Tayam also sought clarification on the constitutionality of “passing the burden of the impeachment from the 19th Congress to the 20th Congress.”

“What I am interested in is what would be the interpretation of the SC about this petition. I believe that this could be part of the jurisprudence since this is sui generis (unique) and can be a landmark case, and at the same time be part of the doctrine in future impeachments during a campaign period,” Tayam said, claiming that he is neither a supporter nor an opponent of Duterte.

He also made it clear that he filed the petition not to gain media mileage for his congressional bid, explaining that the start of the campaign period for local positions is still weeks away – on March 28.

Named respondents in his petition were President Marcos, Escudero, Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino and Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra.

Special session if

Meanwhile, Escudero said Congress has no choice but to convene if President Marcos calls for a special session to give way to an impeachment trial.

“If a special session is called, Congress has no choice (but to convene),” Escudero said at a press conference yesterday.

But he said Congress, for its part, can only request for special session if there is legislation needing immediate action as provided for under the 1987 Constitution. He pointed out that at present, there is no urgent legislation that needs to be passed.

“(Another) question is whether there will be a quorum, especially since we are in the middle of the campaign, and since the calendar has been approved for a long time, some members may not be present,” Escudero said.

In the event of the SC ordering an immediate impeachment trial, Escudero said the matter would be voted upon by members of the Senate serving as impeachment court. — Cecille Suerte Felipe