(Privilege Speech delivered by Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III at the Senate on Monday afternoon, 09 June 2025. Senator Pimentel is incumbent Senate Minority Leader. He was Senate President under the Duterte administration, from July 25, 2016 to May 21, 2018).
Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today on a question of privilege. That’s why I’m asking for the understanding of our colleagues that their explanation may be heard later, Mr. President.
Under Section 107 of the Rules of the Senate, questions of privilege are those affecting the rights, privileges, reputation, conduct, decorum, and dignity of the Senate or of its members, as well as the integrity of its proceedings.
Because of the impeachment case against the Vice President, the Senate itself is now on trial. The reputation and dignity of this institution we hold so dear, painstakingly built up by the many Senators who observed before us, together with our own efforts, are now being attacked online and in the real world out there.
Outside our own gates this morning, there was a demonstration involving a substantial number of our constituents. The root cause of this is the apprehension of our people, based on recent pronouncements and developments, that there will be no impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte. Respected academic institutions and other organizations have spoken with one voice.
We call on the Senate of the Philippines to comply with its constitutional duty to forthwith proceed with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte. These are the UP College of Law Faculty, the Philippine Political Science Association, the San Pedro University Graduate School of Law, the Ateneo School of Government, De La Salle University, University of Santo Tomas, and Adamson University, among others. I am submitting copies of their statements to the Secretariat to form part of the records of the Senate.
The people have also taken to Facebook, TikTok, Twitter, and other social media platforms to voice their concerns and frustrations. Across these channels, the sentiment is clear and growing. Nagkaroon ng agam-agam ang taong bayan, bakit parang pinapatay na ang impeachment proceedings?
This question reflects a deep unease among our citizens, a growing fear that the impeachment process is being deliberately stalled or even quietly ended.
There is confusion as well as distrust at a time when our constitutional duty demands decisive and quick action, and not unnecessary delays and endless debate on whether our duty is optional, captured by the phrase, if at all.
What is that constitutional duty which I have just mentioned? It is a mandate or directive addressed to the Senate and is found in Article 11, Section 3, Paragraph 4 of the 1987 Constitution. In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House of Representatives, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
Since the time we received the Articles of Impeachment from the House of Representatives on February 5, 2025, I have been very vocal that trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. I wrote the Senate President a letter dated February 14, 2025, expressing the following ideas, and I quote from the said letter. “
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, forthwith means without any delay or without interval of time. Its synonyms include immediately, instantaneously, instantly, presently, promptly, right away, right now, straight off, and straight away, among others.
Considering that the 1987 Constitution was promulgated in both English and Filipino, we must examine its official Filipino translation. Kung ang pinanumpaang sakdal o resolusyon sa impeachment ay iniharap ng isang-katlo man lamang ng lahat ng mga Kagawad ng Kapulungan, iyon ay dapat bumuo sa Articles of Impeachment, at dapat isunod agad ang paglilitis ng Senado.”
The Filipino translation for forthwith is agad, which conveys immediacy.
The synonyms of this Filipino word include madali, bigla, dagli, or karakaraka, which denote urgency or promptness. The above elaboration affirms that it is the Senate’s duty to act on the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte without any delay or without interval of time. I repeat that this is the Senate’s duty.
I am submitting a copy of my letter dated February 14, 2025, to the Senate Secretariat to form part of the Records of the Senate. In spite of all of my efforts, member of the minority na nga ako, I am also being hit by all these attacks against the Senate. How much more kayo pong nasa majority? We should all be concerned about what is happening.
One writer wrote, “All of the country’s senators, yes, all of them, as embodiments of the Senate, are failing the Filipino people.”
Hence, I have every right to stand up to express my question of privilege as I worry about our beloved institution’s reputation, integrity, dignity, and even our place in Philippine history. It is now June 9, 2025, or more than four months since the filing of the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate has not yet started the trial.
Tama lang po na mainip ang taong bayan kung kailan ba natin gagampanan ang constitutional duty natin. Indeed, there is a reason for the no-trial fears of our countrymen. To remind us, the Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House of Representatives on February 5, 2025 read as follows.
Article 1. Respondent betrayed the public trust, committed culpable violations of the Constitution, and or committed high crimes in contracting an assassin and plotting to murder or assassinate the incumbent president, the First Lady, and speaker of the House of Representatives as publicly admitted by her in a live broadcast.
Article 2. Respondent betrayed the public trust and or committed graft and corruption, inner misuse and malversation of confidential funds appropriated to the Office of the Vice President, (OVP), and the Department of Education (DepEd).
Article 3. Respondent betrayed the public trust and or committed bribery and or other acts of graft and corruption in violation of Republic Act No. 3019.
Article 4. Respondent committed culpable violations of the Constitution and or betrayal of public trust in amassing unexplained wealth and failing to disclose all her properties and interests in properties in her Statement of Assets and Net Worth (SALN) open and closed parenthesis, SALEN, in violation of Section 17, Article 11 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Article 5. Respondent committed other high crimes, including the high crime of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
Article 6. Respondent, by herself and or in concert with others, committed acts of destabilization, constituting at least a betrayal of public trust and/or culpable violations of the Constitution and even the high crimes of sedition and insurrection.
Article 7. The totality of Respondent’s conduct as Vice President, including her commission of the foregoing acts, clearly display conduct constituting a betrayal of public trust, culpable violations of the 1987 Constitution, and graft and corruption.
These allegations are serious. They demand nothing less than a prompt and fateful discharge of our constitutional duties. Actually, all matters of impeachment are serious and important. Just look at the grounds provided by the Constitution: culpable violations of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.
The Senate President refused to convene the Senate as the impeachment court from February to May 2025 because he believes that the Senate could not act on the Articles of Impeachment while it was not in legislative session.
We have an honest difference of opinion on this matter.
For the record, I believe that the Senate has a separate existence as the impeachment court from the Senate, which is a part of the Legislative Department. The Senate as the impeachment court is governed by Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution. The Senate as a part of the Legislative Department is governed by Article 6.
In short, legislative functions of the Senate are found in Article 6. The other functions of the Senate found outside of Article 6 of the Constitution are therefore what we can call the Senate’s non-legislative functions.
This conclusion is bolstered by the case of Pimentel Jr. v. Joint Committee of Congress, which involved the function of the Senate as part of the National Board of Canvassers for President and Vice President, a function which is found in Article 7 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the legislative functions of the 12th Congress may have come to a close upon the final adjournment of its regular sessions on June 11, 2004, but this does not affect its non-legislative functions.
What is more important to me is the entry in the judgment which states as follows: “In sum, despite the adjournment sine die of Congress, there is no legal impediment to the Joint Committee completing the tasks assigned to it and transmitting its report for the approval of the joint public session of both Houses of Congress which may reconvene without need of call by the President for a special session.”
I want to focus on the phrase “without need of call.” There shall be no need of a call because the Constitution itself recognizes Congress’ existence as the National Board of Canvassers for the Presidential and Vice Presidential elections and mandates the holding of a joint public session.
So in short, the source of the existence of the body and the authority and power to carry out its function and duty is the Constitution itself. It is therefore undeniable that the Senate has duties and functions that are not legislative in nature.
As an additional argument still on this honest difference of opinion, let us look at Article 6, Section 19 of the Constitution. Meron naman copies yang rules natin ng copies of the Constitution. This section talks about two bodies of which Congress, including the Senate, is a member of, the Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments. There is a sentence here in that section that the Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session.
Meaning to say that if the sentence were not in the Constitution, then the Commission on Appointments can meet even while the Congress is not in session. The Electoral Tribunals can therefore meet even when the Congress is not in session because there is no such sentence applicable to the Electoral Tribunals.
Unlike the provisions concerning the Commission on Appointments, there is no similar constitutional limitation found in Article 11 on when the Senate as the impeachment court can convene, meet, or hold sessions in order to perform its functions.
Uulitin ko wala pong sinasabi na ang Senado as an impeachment court shall meet only while the Congress is in session. Clearly, therefore, the Senate as the impeachment court could have proceeded with the trial of the Articles of Impeachment even if the Senate as a legislative body was not in session.
But that period of time from February to May 2025 is lost time already, like water which has passed under a bridge.
To remedy the situation, let us focus on the here and now. Per the proposed calendar of the impeachment trial attached as Annex A to the letter of the Senate President addressed to all Senators dated February 24, 2025, we were supposed to have allowed the panel of prosecutors to present the Articles of Impeachment on June 2, 2025 at 3 p.m. and to have convened the Senate as the impeachment court on June 3 at 9 a.m.
I am also submitting a copy of the letter of the Senate President dated February 24, 2025 with its Annex A to the Secretariat to form a part of the records of the Senate. It is stated in the said Annex A that the Senate “hopes to adhere to the foregoing schedule and, considering that both the prosecution and defense will have ample time to prepare for the proceedings, will not tolerate any dilatory motion or pleading.”
Before June 2 arrived, on May 29, the Senate President vacated this proposed calendar of the impeachment court and transferred the presentation of the Articles of Impeachment by the panel of prosecutors to June 11, 2025, which is a critical date because that happens to be the last day of the legislative session of the Senate per our existing legislative calendar.
Last Monday, June 2, 2025, when I asked the Senate President before the plenary on the American practice in impeachment proceedings regarding the appearance of the prosecutors from the House of Representatives, the Senate President answered me with, and I quote, “That, in turn, will now trigger, if at all, the convening of the impeachment court, where the regular processes would now be followed.”
Dyan po kami natakot dyan sa qualifier na if at all.
That inserted qualifier casts doubt on whether the Senate leadership will follow what is otherwise a clear constitutional command. It suggests that even after the Articles of Impeachment have been read and presented, the convening of the impeachment court might still be discretionary or optional. This use of the if at all phrase has not escaped the notice of our citizens.
The situation is exacerbated by the pronouncement of the Senate President that, “in the end, Senate plenary is supreme.” Add to this the circulation of a resolution, although admittedly a draft, declaring the impeachment case de facto dismissed.
Can we therefore blame law professors, lawyers groups, civil society groups, non-legal personalities, and even ordinary citizens for raising the alarm of a no-trial scenario?
So how do we and can we remedy the situation we are in right now? The remedy is simple.
As Senators, we have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
Let us follow what the Constitution says, most especially those provisions which are directed at the Senate. Sabi ng Constitution, trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
There is no if, no unless, no when convenient.
Indeed, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold the trial of an impeachment complaint, especially when it has been filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House of Representatives, like in this case against the Vice President.
Trial is the most fair course of action because the people need to know if the representatives acted properly and justly by hearing the evidence used by them in filing the impeachment case.
And in the name of due process, we need to give the impeached officer the chance to defend himself or herself and clear his or her name. Klarohin ko na ang pinag-uusapan natin dito ay kung ano ang constitutional duty ng Senado, hindi kung guilty or not guilty na ba ang impeached officer. Saka na ang hatol pagkatapos na ng trial.
Ang importante ay mag-umpisa na ang trial proceedings kasi yan ang utos ng ating Constitution.
Mr. President, my dear colleagues, any further delay not only undermines the explicit mandate of the Constitution and our rules, it risks eroding public trust in the Senate’s capacity and capability to uphold the accountability of public officers and the rule of law.
Not only do many believe that the Senate is heading to a no-trial scenario, worse, many have opined that simply by inaction or by merely refusing to convene as the impeachment court, the Senate seems to believe that it can effectively dismiss or defeat an impeachment complaint duly filed and transmitted by the House of Representatives.
Under Rule 10 of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, at the hour of the day appointed for the trial of an impeachment, the legislative business of the Senate, if there be any, shall be suspended so that the business of the trial can proceed.
So in the light of all of this, and in accordance with our solemn duty under the Constitution, I respectfully, I most respectfully move:
Number one, that our legislative business be suspended.
Number two, that we already convene as the impeachment court at this very moment.
Number three, that the Senate President immediately take his oath as presiding officer of the impeachment court.
Number four, that thereafter, the Senate President/Presiding Officer administer the oath or affirmation to all the members of the Senate now present.
Number five, that the impeachment court then call the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte and come up with a calendar for the trial thereof. Number six, that tomorrow, June 10, 2025, at two o’clock in the afternoon, the impeachment court call the impeachment case for the presentation and reading of the articles of impeachment by the panel of prosecutors of the House of Representatives.
And number seven, that thereafter, the writ of summons be issued to the impeached officer.
So I so move, Mr. President.