The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has expressed concern over what it described as the troubling delay by the Senate in addressing the impeachment complaint filed against Vice President Sara Duterte. In a pastoral letter issued late Tuesday following the CBCP’s plenary assembly in Anda, Bohol, the bishops said they were “disturbed” by the Senate’s inaction on the matter. “We are disturbed by the delay in the Senate in executing the constitutional demand for the impeachment process of the Vice President,” the CBCP said.
chill ka lang okay? CBCP’s just calling out the Senate’s lag sa impeachment process, constitutional duty. They’re not puppeting policies, unlike INC na nag-rally for “peace” daw, pero it was a full-on supporting Inday Lustay against her impeachment. Sino nga ba ang meddler? CBCP’s preaching truth, or yung nag chi-cheer against sa constitutional duty?
grabe ka naman, “wag i-differentiate” daw, pero mali ka dyan. Separation of church and state applies, oo, pero CBCP’s just pushing for constitutional accountability sa impeachment, not picking a team. They are less partisan than the INC’s rally, which explicitly supported Duterte.
it may sound like that on the face of it but if you pay attention to the details, the fact na “delay” pa lang ay considered threat na sa kanila how much more if the impeachment court dismisses the case altogether, at kung titingnan mo din ang timeline, hindi naman ang impeachment court ang nag delay, February pa na-i-file ang 4th impeachment complaint pero the House only forwarded the case to senate sa last day na ng session nila, kaya wag na lang siguro tayong magpa as if na kunwari non-partisan ang CBCP
Epic fail ka pa rin. House sent the articles late, Feb 5, oo, pero ang Senate ang nag pa delay dito, they remanding the case June 10 at pushing trial to July 29? Constitution says “forthwith proceed,” not “chill na muna.” CBCP’s just calling out that lag, not picking a side. Di tulad sa INC’s “peace rally” na puro Sara Duterte pompoms! Sino ang sawsawera? Check mo young timeline, hindi CBCP ang bias dito.
february 5 is adjourment na nga haha 4th impeachment na ito diba, bakit pa umabot sa 4th if they already filed complaints earlier na di naman nila isinumiti sa senado, bakit nila pipigilan ngayon ang adjournment if they all have the time to file on an earlier date?
Three complaints nung Dec 24 didn’t make the cut dahil kulang sa signatures. Only the fourth had 215, kaya na-send sa Senate. At bakit naman mas significant ang pagka delay nila sa imoeachment? Because it occurred after the constitutional process was initiated, contradicting the “forthwith” requirement. They remand it and this is a tactic to delay it by Duterte allies like Alan Peter Cayetano and Ronald dela Rosa.
1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(6): States that when a verified complaint is endorsed by one-third of the House, “trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.” This implies no delays or remands are allowed once articles are transmitted.
Adolfo Azcuna (1987 Constitution Framer): Argues that the Senate can convene as an impeachment court even during a recess, as the Constitution prioritizes immediate action over the legislative calendar.
Dante Gatmaytan (Constitutional Law Expert): Calls the Senate’s remand “unconstitutional,” as the Senate’s role is to “try and decide,” not supervise the House. Only the Supreme Court can rule on the House’s actions.
as i’ve said hindi yan automatic ang trial, yung required sa constitution is the action of senate, the trial is just one action of senate, and not proceeding to trial is still an action of the senate
Kaya nga pinapatagal pa ng Senate, which actually they start nung recess pa. They can start preparing, even informally, walang nag babawal dun. The Senate could have set rules and addressed motions by early June 2025.
as i’ve said the “not proceeding to trial” is still an action of the senate, yung ina-argue mo kasi na delay is the trial in which hindi naman required sa constitution, ang required sa constitution is the “action” or the complaint must be acted by the senate
Mali ka sa “not proceeding to trial” as valid action. Constitution’s crystal clear: “trial shall forthwith proceed” means start the trial ASAP, not mag-remand, or mag-chill ‘til July 29, 2025. Corona and Estrada trials kicked off in 4–6 weeks, not six months. At yung “any action counts” mo ay invalid; delays sabotage accountability, exactly what CBCP’s calling out. Their take’s the real deal, backed by the Constitution and experts.
it is because yung mga trial na mention mo ay walang problem sa constitutionality bossing, yang sinasabi mong clear sa constitution ay para yan sa impeachment complaint na aligned sa constitution, hindi pwedeng mag trial ang senate ng unconstitutional na complaint, ang dami pang dapat i-clarify since 4th impeachment complaint na ito at sa 2nd complaint pa lang banned na sa constitution anu pa kaya yung 4th na
Anu walang problema? Corona at Estrada trials had issues too, pero nag-start in 4–6 weeks. Only the Supreme Court can rule on unconstitutionality. At saan yung supporting evidence mo that the second complaint is banned? There was no prior complaint transmitted to the Senate, and the fourth complaint complies with the one-year bar rule.
Tama ka pero wala namang basehan na mag adjudicate ang supreme court after ma submit yung 4th Impeachment. So bakit pa pinatagal ng Senate? Even yung claims mo na banned yung 2nd complaint sablay, puro hangin lang.
