THE Senate is ready and financially able to conduct an impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte if the House of Representatives transmits the articles of impeachment to the chamber, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said Tuesday.
The statement came as Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco said the House Justice Committee should justify in plenary that its upcoming committee report on the impeachment of Duterte would translate to the articles of impeachment that would be transmitted to the Senate for trial.
"There’s at least P27 million under the 2025 GAA (General Appropriations Act), of which around P500,000 was spent when last year’s articles of impeachment against VP Duterte was transmitted to the Senate," Lacson said in a text message.
"Since the fund is good for two years under ‘continuing appropriations,’ the Senate is ready to conduct the trial," the Senate president pro tempore said.
Senate President Vicente Sotto III earlier said he will act "forthwith" if the House transmits the impeachment complaint against Duterte to the Senate.
The senator said he has been reviewing the rules of court and the Senate rules on impeachment so that he would be ready for any eventuality.
The Senate serves as the impeachment court to try and decide on any complaint to unseat the president and vice president and other impeachable officers of the land.
The Constitution states that "trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed" once an impeachment case is elevated to the upper house.
"I will act on it with dispatch. Definitely forthwith. I know what the meaning of forthwith is," Sotto said in recent a press briefing.
Former Senate president Francis Escudero came under fire for slow walking the impeachment case filed against the vice president in 2025.
"As soon as the Senate receives it, I will inform the Senate and refer it to the Committee on Rules," he said.
The Senate adjourned on March 21 for the Holy Week break. It will resume sessions on May 4.
"We have to convene as an impeachment court. So, technically, we may convene by May 4. That's just two weeks away. So, we may be able to do that," Sotto said.
The Senate chief recently hosted a dinner with some fellow senators to discuss the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Duterte before the House Committee on Justice.
He implored fellow senator-judges "to be impartial in and out of the court" as some of them are allied with Duterte.
"In the discharge of duties, a judge shall not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial," Sotto said. He also advised fellow senators to brush up on the rules of court, which covers the official set of procedural rules that govern how Duterte’s case would be filed, heard, and decided.
"That was one of the intentions and reasons why I hosted a dinner with some senators to join us. I told them about it, just in case the matter reaches us. It's better that we’re prepared," he said.
"We can’t be fumbling, because there may be issues the presiding officer will raise to the body, or objections from members that we should know how to properly address," Sotto said.
"It is part of the work of the Senate. It is part of the job order. In fact, even the Senate legal team is empowered to prepare with or without an impeachment, so we should be ready. We must always be prepared." "We are simply preparing just in case. Since the possibility is already there, it is part of the Senate’s responsibility. We are empowered to do so, and the relevant offices within the Senate are likewise authorized to prepare," he added.
"We are merely getting ready to ensure we are not caught off guard or forced into a rush should the House of Representatives transmit the articles of impeachment. If no such articles are sent, then that is well and good, and we will return our focus to legislation," Sotto said.
Justify it
Also on Tuesday, Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco said the House Justice Committee should justify in plenary that its upcoming committee report on the impeachment of Duterte would translate to the articles of impeachment that would be transmitted to the Senate for trial.
Tiangco's comments come as the panel is set to deliberate the impeachment cases' sufficiency for probable cause on Wednesday, the last day of the hearings, after hearing Duterte's threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Marcos, and former speaker Martin Romualdez.
In an interview on The Manila Times Newsroom on Tuesday, Tiangco said the evidence presented during the hearings was "not enough" to make a judgment because they have not explained how these could either be a culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust, two of the grounds for impeaching public officials.
"They should explain in the committee report that what [Duterte] did is equivalent to culpable violation of the constitution or betrayal of public trust," Tiangco said.
He added that the Committee should be able to justify the report why its cases should fall under these two grounds.
"Even if there is wrongdoing, assuming there is wrongdoing, if it does not fit either culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust, it should not be considered as a impeachable offense," Tiangco said.
Meanwhile, Akbayan Rep. Perci Cendaña said the House Committee on Justice's hearing on the two impeachment complaints against the vice president were exempted from the Bank Secrecy Law.
In a statement on Facebook, Cendaña said the members of the committee and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) did not break any law.
"It is clearer than day that impeachment hearings are exceptions to the coverage of the Bank Secrecy Law and Anti-Money Laundering Act," Cendaña said.
Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro, the committee chairman, said in a DZBB interview that the panel did not violate a law in disclosing findings of AMLC, after Duterte's husband, Manases Carpio, filed a complaint on Monday at the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office against several people including Luistro, Cendaña, Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno, and AMLC Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura over the disclosure.
"We remember that under the Bank Secrecy Law, it was expressly provided that impeachment cases should be an exception in the confidentiality in the Bank Secrecy Law. And applying the totality, it should be applied as well when it comes to AMLC," Luistro said in the radio interview.
She said in the same interview that the AMLC did not report on the bank accounts but "covered transactions and suspicious transactions." She also said that "in our way to be conservative, in our way to be cautious, we opted not to subpoena the bank, including the bank records. Instead, we opted to subpoena the AMLC with its report of covered and suspicious transactions.”
The committee is determining whether there is probable cause to impeach Duterte.
De Lima said in Filipino in a post on X that "I am not afraid to face any case, especially that we... are not violating any law."
Meanwhile, Diokno said that anyone can file a complaint and that he respected that right, adding that he would "answer the allegations in the proper forum."
"At the same time, I have to emphasize that the House Committee on Justice is merely fulfilling its duty," he said.
"Attorney Carpio is married to the vice president and under our laws, their properties are communal in nature. So, there should be every reason to look into the properties of both spouses. At the same time, we need to see, based on what was alleged in the complaint, what really is the basis for those claims of unexplained wealth," he said.
"It was clear that what the AMLC disclosed were covered and suspicious transactions. No specific accounts were disclosed," Diokno added.
One of the two impeachment complaints alleged that Duterte betrayed public trust over alleged unexplained wealth. This was the complaint field by priests and others.
It also alleged that she committed culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayed public trust in connection with confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) for 2022 and 2023 and confidential funds allocated for 2023 to the Department of Education (DepEd) which she led as secretary before she resigned in 2024 from that post.
The other complaint, filed by lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera, alleged that she "betrayed the public trust and committed acts of graft and corruption by grossly abusing discretionary authority over confidential funds appropriated to the OVP and DepEd."
Duterte’s response to these complaints was simply that they must be dismissed. She has refused to attend the House hearings, and has tried to stop them by petitioning the Supreme Court.
