The Supreme Court could not reverse the very ruling it issued last year, declaring the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional but requiring the House of Representatives to give the accused every opportunity to present her side.

So the House complied, despite all kinds of technicalities hurled at it by the accused, who was a no-show at all hearings it held on the case.

The Vice President filed complaints before the High Court to put a stop to the House hearings. But it was this court that ordered that the Vice President be allowed to answer the accusations before the House. So instead, the Court has seen it fit to redefine the English word “forthwith,” thereby allowing the Senate, which will be receiving the articles of impeachment from the House, to delay the impending trial of the Vice President for as long as it deems fit and necessary.

By doing so, it has introduced a questionable technicality that delays the trial and thereby deprives the Filipino people, who want to know the truth about the charges against the Vice President, of justice.

But where does this new definition come from? It is not from the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which mentions the word once, in Article XI, Section 4: “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”

Since  there  is  no  definition,  or  redefinition,  of  this  word  in  the  sole  constitutional provision where it is used, the framers of the 1987 Constitution were therefore using this word as it has been defined at that time by the world’s English language lexicographers – professional editors and authors who research, compile, and update officially recognized English language dictionaries such as Oxford and Merriam-Webster.

According  to  the  Oxford  Dictionary,  forthwith  means  “immediately,”  “at once,”  and  “without  delay  or  interval.”  Merriam-Webster  Dictionary  echoes this definition, saying it means “without any delay.”

Does the High Court have any authority or competence to define or redefine words of the  English  language?  No.  So  why  did  it  arrogate  unto  itself  the  authority  to  redefine “forthwith”?

The  obvious  answer  is  that  a  majority  of  the  sitting  Supreme  Court  justices  are appointees of former President Rodrigo Duterte, father of the Vice President.

Because they owe their appointment to the former President, they are now returning the favor by protecting the interests of the former President’s daughter.

Should this kind of a situation be allowed? Does it meet the ends of justice? No. This act is a subversion of justice, coming as it does from the top court of the land, one that is supposed to ensure that justice is upheld for all Filipinos.

How  can  this  obvious  travesty  of  justice  be  prevented?  There  is  only  one  way:  all Supreme Court justices must be made to step down and all seats in that court must be declared vacant.

The  Judicial  and  Bar  Council  may  continue  to  draw  up  a  list  of  candidates  for  the vacated  seats,  but  the  power  to  appoint  the  new  justices  must  be  removed  from  the sitting President. The candidates must be made to compete in an election to assume the vacant seats. This is to ensure that the justices are accountable to the people

Daniel Agoncillo

has worked as an editor in various newspapers for 17 years. He occasionally writes for the Institute for Studies in Asian Church and Culture (ISACC)