The ‘forthwith’ odyssey of the Supreme Court: Power and interpretation

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines forthwith as immediately, without delay. Yet on April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court offered a new definition: forthwith can now mean either longer or shorter.

The Supreme Court’s decision to give a new definition of the word “forthwith,” drawn from Section 3 (4) of Article XI—Accountability of Public Officers—of the 1987 Philippine Constitution—reveals so many things.

First, it proves that the Supreme Court does not only interpret laws but also has the power to shape decisions akin to those of the executive branch. This is known as judicial activism, coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1947. Through judicial activism, the Supreme Court shapes a policy on how Congress should act on impeachment cases, which in this regard has given Congress a wide latitude in hearing the case sooner or later, thereby transgressing the original intention of the framers of the Constitution.

This decision also reveals that the Court is not shielded from the politics of its composition. In the study of Dressel, Inoue, and Bonoan (2023), the term “loyalty checks” is coined to explain that voting preferences in the Court are being swayed by the appointer (the president who appointed them into office). The cases filed in the Supreme Court regarding the impeachment hearings of Vice President Sara Duterte have resulted in favoring her. In declaring the impeachment as unconstitutional, 13 concurred and two inhibited, and in redefining forthwith, 14 concurred and one inhibited. This reveals that the majority of those who voted in favor are all appointees of former President Rodrigo Duterte. Thirteen Supreme Court justices are Duterte appointees and only two by the late President Benigno Aquino III.

This criticism of the Supreme Court is bluntly challenging the idea that it is indeed “supreme.” As the final arbiter of the law, it is in no way a perfect court. It can commit mistakes. Mistakes that can result out of a lack of discernment, lack of foresight, and in this case did not weigh precedent enough, as well as gross disrespect for legal history.

The same can also be levied against these decisions that are obtusely favoring the VP. We still have to see the court flip-flop on these cases (as the first case is declared final and the second is already moot and academic) and whether the decision—favoring the VP—could cripple (or not) the impeachment mechanism to exact accountability from public officials who commit high crimes or have betrayed the public’s hard-earned trust.

The Supreme Court has revealed the nuances on which it operates in why it favored Duterte. It is acting as a judicial activist that imposes policies rather than merely interpreting factual questions. It is very political by the virtue of its composition, and it lets loyalty dynamics (Dressel, Inoue, and Bonoan; 2023) take precedence over sober rationality and legal luminosity. It is also an institution that can be mistaken, be wrong, and be on the wrong side of history.

The Supreme Court has to reconsider whether its having favored a certain candidate would facilitate an accountability mechanism that is democratic, efficient, equitable, and that would dissuade any public official from committing corruption, other high crimes, or simply betraying the public’s trust. The Court has to initiate a conversation with itself to ask the most pressing questions today and for the future. Are its decisions sparking an ounce of betterment for the general public who have been flooded with corruption by public officials at all levels of governance? I am still hopeful yet pragmatic. I still trust that the Court will come to its most legalistic, rational, and ethical senses—one way or the other, today or in the most foreseeable future.

Pat Ray M. Dagapioso,

patray.dagapioso@msunaawan.edu.ph