Definition of “Forthwith” Unnecessary and Incorrect

by Dante Gatmaytan

In Generillo, Jr. v. Senate of the Philippines (G.R. No. 278311), the Supreme Court defined “forthwith” as found in Article XI, Section 3(4). In a press release the Court explained:

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 Supreme Court considered the petition moot because the Senate had begun impeachment preparations, and the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Duterte were nullified by the Supreme Court’s July 25, 2025 Decision and January 28, 2026 Resolution in Duterte v. House of Representatives.

A dismissal based on mootness is significant. It means that the Court did not make any pronouncement on the legal issues that were raised in the Petition.

A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.[1] It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[2]

Anything the Court expressed in Generillo should be considered obiter dictum.

Obiter dictum is an opinion rendered by a court upon a legal question that is not necessary in the resolution of the case before it, has no binding force for purposes of res judicata as it was made without argument or full consideration of the point.[3]

It does not embody the resolution or determination of the court, and is made without argument, or full consideration of the point. It lacks the force of an adjudication, being a mere expression of an opinion with no binding force for purposes of res judicata.[4]

The Supreme Court definition was unnecessary. For the sake of academic discussion, I express my disagreement with the Court when it proceeded to define “forthwith.”

1. Text of the Statute/Constitution is clear.

There was no need to define “forthwith.”

The rule is that if a statute or constitutional provision is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is known as the plain meaning rule enunciated by the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.[5] In such cases,

It is the duty of the Court to apply the law the way it is worded. Basic is the rule of statutory construction that when the law is clear and unambiguous, the court is left with no alternative but to apply the same according to its clear language. The courts can only pronounce what the law is and what the rights of the parties thereunder are. Fidelity to such a task precludes construction or interpretation, unless application is impossible or inadequate without it. Thus, it is only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe its true intent.

Parenthetically, the “plain meaning rule” or verba legis in statutory construction enjoins that if the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation. This rule of interpretation is in deference to the plenary power of Congress to make, alter and repeal laws as this power is an embodiment of the People’s sovereign will. Accordingly, when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, courts cannot deviate from the text of the law and resort to interpretation lest they end up betraying their solemn duty to uphold the law and worse, violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers.[6]

Merriam-Webster defines “forthwith” as “without any delay .”[7] Forthwith means immediately.[8] Justia’s legal dictionary defines “forthwith” as  “As soon as possible without any delay.”[9]

Collins identifies the following as synonyms of forthwith: immediately, directly, instantly, at once, right away, straight away, without delay, and quickly.[10]

Only in the Supreme Court’s opinion is “forthwith” so malleable or discretionary.

2. Comparison with the procedure of the House of Representatives is unnecessary.

There is no need to compare the procedure for the impeachment of public officials in the House of Representatives. The House is assigned many tasks such as the determination of the complaints’ sufficiency in form and substance, and the determination of the existence of probable cause. This is why the constitution lays down a strict timeline for the House to observe to prevent it from sitting on these complaints.

In contrast, the Senate is given one task — the trial of the impeached official. Nevertheless, the Senate is also precluded from sitting on the impeachment because the Constitution provided an even stricter schedule for the Senate to follow — “forthwith proceed.”

It does not make sense for the framers to ensure the speedy resolution of an impeachment only to sanction a more leisurely pace for a Senate trial. It is more likely that the framers of the Constitution could not gauge the length of time it will be needed to finish a trial, but it could mandate its immediate start.

3. Effect of the new definition.

The Supreme Court’s definition of forthwith is dangerous because it authorizes the Senate to slow down the trial because the Senate can cite as many circumstances as it can that can delay or even render the case moot (as when the term of the impeached official has expired).

Nothing in the revised definition of “forthwith” vindicates Senator Chiz Escudero’s behavior during the impeachment of the Vice President in 2025-2026.[11] There was no “reasonable time” that sanctioned the delay. At most he doubted the motivations of those who sought the impeachment of the Vice President.[12] There was no “reasonable time” made necessary by a trial properly conducted but a refusal to carry out the Senate’s constitutional duty.

To reiterate, there was no need to interpret “forthwith” because it is clear. Generillo managed to give the Senate discretion in conducting an impeachment trial where the framers of the Constitution sought to deprive them of such discretion.

[1] David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400, 171489 & 171424, May 3, 2006.

[2] Garcillano v. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, G.R. Nos. 170338 & 179275, December 23, 2008.

[3] Catalan v. Bombaes, G.R. Nos. 233461 & 233681 (Resolution), October 9, 2023.

[4] Land Bank of the Phils. v. Suntay, G.R. No. 188376, December 14, 2011.

[5] Padilla v. Congress of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 231671 & 231694, July 25, 2017.

[6] Duterte v. House of Representatives, G.R. Nos. 278353 & 278359, July 25, 2025.

[7] Forthwith, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forthwith (last visited May 1, 2025).

[8] Forthwith, Collins Dictionary, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/forthwith (last visited May 1, 2025).

[9] Forthwith, Justia Legal Dictionary, https://dictionary.justia.com/forthwith (last visited May 1, 2025).

[10] Forthwith, Collins Dictionary,  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/forthwith (last visited May 1, 2025).

[11] Hannah L. Torregoza, SC ‘forthwith’ clarification vindicated Senate’s 2025 impeachment court, ex-spox says, Mla Bull. (April 30, 2026), https://mb.com.ph/2026/04/30/sc-forthwith-clarification-vindicated-senates-2025-impeachment-court-ex-spox-says.

[12] Press Release, Senate of the Philippines, Chiz: Senate Stands by Rule of Law, Constitution in Abiding by SC Decision (Aug. 7, 2025), https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2025/0807_escudero1.asp.