The Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 29, dismissed a petition seeking to compel the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court against Vice President Sara Duterte, ruling that the constitutional term “forthwith” does not require instantaneous action.

In a 14-0-1 decision written by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, the Court rejected the petition for mandamus filed by Catalino Aldea Generillo Jr., stressing that the judiciary cannot interfere with the internal processes of a co-equal branch unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

The Court explained that while the Constitution requires the Senate to “forthwith proceed” with impeachment trials, the term is legally interpreted as action within a reasonable period, allowing the chamber discretion to undertake necessary preparations before convening as an impeachment court.

Treating the petition as one for certiorari, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Senate’s actions, noting that it had already begun impeachment-related preparations within its constitutional authority.

It further declared the petition moot, citing the absence of operative articles of impeachment after prior Supreme Court rulings nullified them in a July 25, 2025, decision and a January 28, 2026, resolution in Duterte v. House of Representatives.

With no valid impeachment articles remaining, the Court said there was no longer any legal basis to compel the Senate to immediately act.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen concurred in the result, agreeing that the case was moot while emphasizing that impeachment proceedings should still be organized promptly by the Senate as a collective body.