“What do readers think? Are the arguments valid or not?”
THERE’S been heated debate on the issue since the upper chamber of Congress received the articles of impeachment from the House of Representatives last month.
But since we’ve been hearing mostly the side of those opposed to any delay in the impeachment, maybe we also ought to hear the opposite side.
Here’s an alternative view of the issue—slightly edited for brevity—that we discovered recently in our inbox titled “The impeachment delay that never was.”
“The narrative is now firmly established in certain circles: the Senate is sitting on the impeachment case. Leadership is dragging its feet. The process has stalled. Senators are twiddling their thumbs while democracy hangs in the balance. The only problem with this compelling story is that it’s complete fiction.
“Let’s start with June 11, the day the Senate convened as an impeachment court. For those keeping score at home, this is the opposite of avoiding the matter.
“On that same day, the Senate issued a writ of summons to Vice President Duterte. This isn’t ceremonial paperwork. It’s the formal legal document that puts the respondent under the court’s authority. Think of it as the judicial equivalent of ‘you’ve got mail,’ except the mail is a constitutional proceeding that could end your career.
“Also on June 11, the House certified that the complaint met constitutional requirements. This matters because without that certification, the Senate couldn’t proceed even if it wanted to sprint to a verdict.
“The Vice President has been properly notified. Her legal team has been assembled, complete with a high-profile lawyer who presumably knows which end of the Constitution is up. If this were a boxing match, both fighters would be in the ring, gloves on, waiting for the bell. Yet somehow, critics are complaining about delays.
“Some observers note that the Senate hasn’t moved to trial yet, as if this represents some sort of procedural failure. Impeachment doesn’t work “like ordering coffee.
“You can’t just walk up to the constitutional counter and demand instant accountability. The process unfolds through clearly defined stages: receiving the complaint, verifying its form and substance, convening the court, issuing summons, getting acknowledgment from the respondent, entering a plea.
“These are Constitutional requirements that exist for very good reasons.
“Even if Duterte decides to play hide-and-seek with the proceedings, Senate President Chiz Escudero has already clarified that the court will simply enter a not-guilty plea on her behalf and continue. This is standard practice when defendants try to dodge accountability by becoming suddenly unavailable.
“Critics are essentially demanding that the Senate speed up a constitutional process to meet a political timeline. They want fewer steps, accelerated procedures, and streamlined justice. Consider what would happen if the Senate actually yielded to these demands. Skip the formalities, ignore standard motions, rush through the evidence.
“The result wouldn’t be swift justice. It would be a defense attorney’s dream and a prosecutor’s nightmare.
“Courts exist to weigh evidence, apply law, and reach conclusions based on facts rather than political convenience. This takes time. It’s supposed to take time. The Senate’s measured pace isn’t obstruction. It’s what happens when institutions take their constitutional responsibilities seriously.
“What we’re witnessing isn’t the Senate dragging its feet. It’s the rule of law lacing up its boots. The court has convened. The summons has been issued.
“The lawyers are on record. The process is moving exactly as it should. The next time someone insists the Senate is ‘delaying’ the impeachment trial, ask them to identify the missing step.”
What do readers think? Are the arguments valid or not?
(Email: enrhil@yahoo.com)
