By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The constitutional math behind the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is facing renewed scrutiny as the absence of several senator-judges raises fresh questions over whether the Senate impeachment court should continue requiring 16 votes to convict.
Benjamin Tolosa, legal spokesperson for the House prosecution panel, said Tuesday that the court may have reason to revisit its earlier interpretation of the constitutional two-thirds requirement if a significant number of senator-judges remain unable to personally participate in the proceedings.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of all 24 senators to convict an impeached official, putting the current threshold at 16 votes.
Senate President Francis Escudero, who presides over the impeachment court, previously ruled that the requirement remains 16 votes despite the absence of some senator-judges.
That position is now being tested by the realities inside the courtroom.
Tolosa said the presiding officer’s original interpretation was a strict reading of the constitutional provision. But he suggested that the continuing absences could become relevant if the court reassesses whether that interpretation remains appropriate under the circumstances.
“At the start, it was clear the presiding officer said his interpretation of the two-thirds requirements means 16. It’s a strict interpretation,” Tolosa said.
“But kung ganito ‘yung nangyayaring realidad na napakaraming hindi nakakapag-attend personally… tingin ko reasonable hong isipin na baka isang maging factor ito for them to consider kung tama ho ’yung original position na they took on that matter,” he added.
The issue carries potentially major consequences for the impeachment proceedings because the number of senators physically participating in the trial could affect the practical application of the conviction requirement.
The prosecution is also calling on senator-judges to personally attend the proceedings, saying their constitutional responsibility goes beyond simply being members of the Senate.
Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, a prosecution spokesperson, said senator-judges should be physically present to observe the proceedings, hear witnesses and evaluate the evidence firsthand.
“Mas maigi po at mas makakatulong sa pag-maintain at pag-promote ng integrity ng proceeding ng impeachment trial kung sila po mismo ang nandoon at sila po mismo nag-oobserba at nakikinig at nag-aassess at nag-e-evaluate ng mga ebidensiya,” Adiong said.
He emphasized that the Constitution requires senators to “try and decide” impeachment cases.
The controversy over the conviction threshold surfaced even before Duterte’s trial formally began, with arguments that the required number of votes could be reconsidered because of the absence or unavailability of certain senator-judges.
In July, House impeachment prosecutor Rep. Leila de Lima said the issue was not yet ripe for Supreme Court review.
De Lima said the constitutional question could eventually reach the high court if fewer than 16 senators vote to convict Duterte.
For the prosecution, however, the issue is no longer merely a matter of constitutional arithmetic. With senator-judges missing from the proceedings, the interpretation of the 16-vote requirement has become an increasingly significant question hanging over the trial.
And as the Senate continues to hear the impeachment case, the question remains: Does a fixed 16-vote threshold still stand unchanged when some of the very senators expected to “try and decide” the case are not present?
ia/xf
