The Supreme Court (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on April 29, 2026, dismissed the petition for mandamus filed by Catalino Aldea Generillo Jr., which sought to compel the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court to try the charges against Vice President Sara Duterte.
In a 14-0-1 decision written by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the SC held that mandamus, which is meant to enforce a clear legal duty, was not the proper remedy.
It ruled that the Senate’s actions within its sphere cannot be revised or controlled by the judicial department through mandamus. As a co-equal constitutional body, the Senate’s exercise of its duties is beyond the SC’s power of review, except in cases of grave abuse of discretion.
However, specifically for this case and in the interest of equity, the SC treated the petition as one for certiorari and proceeded to determine whether the Senate acted unlawfully or abused its discretion when it did not convene immediately as an impeachment court during its session break.
Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, the SC found that the Senate acted on the impeachment complaint in a timely manner.
While the Constitution requires the House of Representatives to act within a certain number of session days on an impeachment complaint, it does not specify a fixed timeframe for the Senate to start an impeachment trial. It simply provides that the trial “shall forthwith proceed,” leaving the timing to the Senate’s discretion.
The SC clarified that the term “forthwith” in Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution means within a reasonable time, which may be longer or shorter, depending on the circumstances of each case. This allows the Senate to make the necessary preparations to convene as an impeachment court.
While the Constitution does not set an exact date for the trial, the Senate must avoid undue delay to uphold the principle that public officers must at all times be accountable to the people.
The SC considered the petition moot because the Senate had begun impeachment preparations, and the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte were nullified by the SC’s July 25, 2025 Decision and January 28, 2026 Resolution in Duterte v. House of Representatives. A case is moot when subsequent events remove any issues, making court rulings unnecessary. Since no Articles of Impeachment remained, the SC had no reason to order the Senate to convene as an impeachment court.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen concurred only in the result, that the petition was moot. However he was of the position that the impeachment court should have been convened immediately and that the impeachment court—not merely the Senate president—should have taken charge of organizing that court.
Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa took no part.
*Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office. Read the full text of the press briefer for further information.
Stay updated—follow Philippines Today on Facebook and Instagram, and subscribe on YouTube for more stories.