Senators Clash Over Trial Continuation Beyond 19th Congress
On June 2, three senators voiced sharply different views on the constitutional limits of continuing the impeachment trial beyond the 19th Congress. The key issue centers on whether the impeachment process can lawfully extend past June 30, 2025, the official end of the current Congress. This debate over trial continuation beyond 19th Congress raises critical questions about constitutional mandates and Senate procedures.
Senate Majority Leader Francis “Tol” Tolentino warned that pushing the trial past the closing of the 19th Congress would breach the 1987 Constitution. He emphasized that the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, must wrap up all proceedings before the current Congress expires. “Only 12 Senators remain after each election, insufficient to form a quorum. Thus, unlike the U.S. Senate, we cannot carry unfinished proceedings into the next Congress,” Tolentino explained. He added, “Allowing the 20th Congress to take over this trial would be ultra vires or beyond our constitutional power.”
Tolentino supported his position by referencing key jurisprudence and Senate rules. He cited cases like Neri v. Senate and Balag v. Senate, as well as Jefferson’s Manual, to stress that legislative and investigatory actions, including impeachment trials, end with each Congress. “Unfinished business does not carry over into a new Congress,” he asserted.
Opposing Views: Impeachment as Non-legislative Duty
Senator Risa Hontiveros countered that impeachment trials are non-legislative functions of the Senate. She argued that these proceedings are not subject to the same termination rules that govern legislative activities at the end of a Congress. “The 1987 Constitution demands that the Senate continue with the impeachment proceedings already initiated without further delay,” Hontiveros said.
She drew from Supreme Court rulings such as Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council and Pimentel Jr. v. Joint Committee of Congress to highlight the distinction between legislative and non-legislative tasks like impeachment. Hontiveros stressed the constitutional importance of fulfilling this duty: “Napakahalagang mandato po ng Saligang Batas ito. Klaro at walang kalabuan. We will be judged by the public if we fail to perform our constitutional duty.”
Minority Leader’s Broader Interpretation
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III offered a broader view of the impeachment process. He described it as a sui generis, or unique, quasi-judicial, and inherently political procedure. Pimentel believes the trial can legitimately continue into the 20th Congress.
He pointed out that neither the 1987 Constitution nor Senate impeachment rules explicitly restrict continuation beyond the current Congress. “In fact, Rule 3 of the Senate Impeachment Rules says the trial shall continue until final judgment,” he noted.
Pimentel emphasized jurisdictional continuity, likening the impeachment court to judicial bodies whose cases persist regardless of membership changes. “Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost. The impeachment docket of the Senate impeachment court continues and remains the same,” he explained. According to him, the Senate sitting as an impeachment court operates independently of legislative calendars.
Legal Uncertainty as Congress Nears End
The diverging interpretations reveal the legal uncertainty surrounding the upcoming impeachment trial of the former president. With only weeks left before the 19th Congress adjourns, the Senate faces increasing pressure to clarify these constitutional questions. Lawmakers must decide whether to proceed with the trial or allow it to lapse.
This debate underscores the complex balance between constitutional mandates, Senate rules, and political realities. As the deadline approaches, all eyes remain on the Senate’s next moves.
For more news and updates on trial continuation beyond 19th Congress, visit Filipinokami.com.