By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court is turning to retired Supreme Court justices and constitutional law experts for guidance on a disputed question that could determine the outcome of Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial, even as prosecutors prepare to seek her testimony in the proceedings.
The court plans to hear from amici curiae, or legal experts invited to assist in resolving the question of how many senators must vote to convict Duterte.
At the center of the dispute is the requirement under the Constitution that conviction in an impeachment case requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
With the Senate composed of 24 members, the disputed threshold is 16 votes.
Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo has questioned the interpretation requiring 16 votes, prompting the impeachment court to seek outside constitutional expertise before making a final determination.
Impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol said retired Supreme Court justices and constitutional experts are being considered for the role. The court is expected to hear their views before the prosecution and defense present their respective arguments on the voting requirement.
The court has tentatively set September 16 for the presentation of the amici curiae and September 23 for oral arguments by both sides.
The issue is separate from another constitutional question that has emerged in the trial: whether Duterte herself can be compelled to testify against the charges.
House prosecutors have announced that they intend to present Duterte as a witness after completing their evidence on the impeachment articles.
The announcement was made as the prosecution pursued its case involving allegations concerning the use of confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education during Duterte’s tenure.
Prosecutors have not yet formally asked the impeachment court to issue a subpoena requiring Duterte to testify.
The move, however, has already drawn an objection from Duterte’s defense.
Duterte’s lead counsel, Sheila Sison, has invoked Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
The defense maintains that the constitutional protection prevents prosecutors from forcing Duterte to provide testimony that could be used against her in the impeachment case.
The prosecution and defense therefore hold opposing positions on whether the impeachment court can require Duterte to take the witness stand.
The court has not yet ruled on the issue.
If prosecutors formally seek a subpoena, the defense is expected to have an opportunity to challenge the request before the impeachment court decides whether Duterte may be compelled to testify.
The two disputes involve different questions.
The first concerns the number of votes required for conviction and how the constitutional two-thirds requirement should be applied to the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
The second concerns testimonial compulsion and whether Duterte’s constitutional protection against being compelled to testify against herself applies to her impeachment trial.
No formal subpoena request for Duterte has been filed, and the impeachment court has yet to rule on whether she may be compelled to testify. The court is scheduled to hear the views of invited legal experts on the 16-vote conviction threshold on September 16, followed by oral arguments from the prosecution and defense on September 23.
ia/xf
