Senate can convene into impeachment court even during recess, solons say

A House of Representatives prosecutor and an endorser of the fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte maintained Friday that the Senate can convene as an impeachment court even if Congress is in recess.

The Senate and the House adjourned on February 7 and are scheduled to resume session on June 2, 2025.

"Wala namang mga kondisyones (There are no conditions) before convening as an impeachment court," Ako Bicol Party-list Representative Raul Angelo Bongalon, one of the 11 members of the impeachment prosecution team, told reporters in an online interview.

"Considering that the Congress is in recess, then they can have a call for a special session primarily to act on the mandate of the Constitution that trial shall forthwith proceed. So hindi ibig sabihin na naka-recess, hindi na sila magco-convene as an impeachment trial (So this doesn't mean that when in recess, senators cannot convene for an impeachment trial). They can do that for as long as, of course, the majority of the members of the Senate can agree," Bongalon added.

"The constitutional provision as provided under the Constitution is itself the call already—that the Senate should convene the trial forthwith is already the call. You don't need any other initiative from either the Executive or the Supreme Court for the Senate to undertake their constitutional duty," said Representative Jude Acidre of Tingog Party-list, one of the endorsers of the impeachment complaint that the House transmitted to the Senate on February 5.

"Hindi kailangan magpatawag ng special session kasi nasasaad na sa Constitution. Klaro po yung provision, walang conditionalities (The Constitution is clear that a special session does not need to be convened. No conditionalities)," Acidre added.

Acidre also cited that there is another instance when Congress can convene without a call for a special session.

"Hindi lang naman ito ang tanging situation na nakasaad sa Constitution (This is not the only situation provided in the Constitution) wherein Congress needs to convene without need of a call. Kita natin (We've seen that), to confirm the martial law declaration, Congress has to convene. Because as the Supreme Court previously noted, there is now a distinction, there is a distinction between the legislative and non-legislative powers of Congress," Acidre said.

Questions for senators

Acidre also posed questions for the Senate, "Kung susundin natin 'yung mindset ng Senate noon na dahil naka-recess, ibig sabihin ba noon, Tina, ang accountability ng public officials naka-recess din whenever naka-recess ang Congress?"

(If we follow the Senate's mindset, does that mean that the accountability of public officials also goes into recess whenever Congress is in recess.)

"So mahirap po na ganoon po 'yung punto na ating susundin. Kaya para sa akin, irrelevant 'yung question kung kailangan mag-special session o hindi. Dapat talaga sila mag-session. Ang question lang, gagampanan ba ng Senado ang kanilang mandato?" Acidre asked.

(So it's difficult to follow that reasoning. For me, the question of whether or not a special session is needed is irrelevant. They should really hold a session. The question is, will the Senate fulfill its mandate?)

'Of the essence'

Bongalon said the House impeachment prosecution panel is continuously preparing for the impeachment trial as they believe "time is of the essence."

He warned that if the impeachment trial would start after the State of the Nation Address in July as Senate President Francis Escudero earlier expected, it would distract legislators from deliberating on priority legislation.

"We could start already so that we can finish this before the end of the 19th Congress. I guess the time before the end, which is June 30 of 2025, I think it's sufficient for us to finish the trial," Bongalon said.

Earlier this week, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel sent a letter to Escudero, saying that the upper chamber should immediately convene as an impeachment court.

Rene Sarmiento, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, said Wednesday the Senate was bound by the Charter to immediately convene as an impeachment court, even if it is not in session.

"We have Constitutional supremacy. All laws, regulations, all contracts have to yield to the supremacy of the Constitution. The Rules of the Senate, they have to yield to the command of the Constitution to proceed forthwith," Sarmiento said.

Waiting for another EDSA?

As for Escudero's remark questioning the "clamor" to immediately convene an impeachment court, Acidre said, "Kung hinahanap nila 'yung clamor (If they're looking for clamor), the 240 congressmen who signed for it, each representing their own district, already reflects a sizable number of the Philippine population who are calling for the impeachment of the Vice President."

"'Yung mga unang tatlong (The first three) impeachment complaints were signed basically by civil society and government figures. So anong clamor pa ba hinahanap natin? Inaantay ba natin magkaroon ulit ng isang EDSA or magkaroon ng rally (What clamor are we still looking for? Are we waiting for another EDSA People Power revolt or rally)?" Acidre added.

Bongalon, on the other hand, said clamor—or the lack of it—should not be an issue in the Senate's fulfillment of its Constitutional duties.

"Clamor is not a basis for us to act on something that the Constitution mandates. So whether may clamor 'yan or wala, sinasabi ng Constitution na meron tayong obligasyon, trabaho, na mag-convene, as the Senate as the sitting impeachment trial court,” Bongalon said.

(Clamor is not a basis for us to act on something that the Constitution mandates. So whether or not there is clamor, the the Constitution provides that we have an obligation, a job, which is for the Senate to convene as the sitting impeachment trial court.)

Bongalon added that clamor or rallies should not be trigger for taking action, even if he said the people are already calling for the impeachment proceedings to begin.

"The Constitution is clear: once the impeachment complaint is filed by more than one-third of the House members, then the ball is in the Senate's court," he said.

The impeachment complaint against the Vice President provides for seven Articles of Impeachment, namely:

1. conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. First Lady Liza Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez;
2. malversation of P612.5 Million in confidential funds with questionable liquidation documents;
3. bribery and corruption in the DepEd during Duterte’s tenure by handing out cash to former DepEd Undersecretary Gloria Jumamil-Mercado (Procurement Head), Bids and Awards Committee Member Resty Osias, DepEd Chief Accountant Rhunna Catalan and Special Disbursing Officer Edward Fajarda;
4. unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets in the Vice President’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth where her wealth increased by four times from 2007 from 2017;
5. involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City;
6. destabilization, insurrection, and public disorder efforts, which include: boycotting the State of the Nation Address (SONA) while declaring herself "designated survivor," leading rallies calling for Marcos' resignation, obstructing congressional investigations by ordering subordinates not to comply with subpoenas, threatening bodily harm against the First Couple and Romualdez, among others;
7. the totality of the Vice President’s conduct as the second highest official of the land.

— VDV, GMA Integrated News