By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — Detention does not strip Sen. Rodante Marcoleta of his authority to act as a senator-judge in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, he said, asserting that he remains entitled to participate and cast his vote despite being in custody.
Marcoleta made the position clear in a July 20, 2026, letter to Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian and Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero, challenging any interpretation that would automatically exclude detained senators from the impeachment proceedings.
“There is no impairment to my legal capacity to vote as a Senator-judge for I am not under preventive suspension,” Marcoleta wrote.
The statement comes as the Senate continues to grapple with a critical question over the number of votes required to convict Duterte and whether senators unable to physically attend proceedings should still be included in the computation.
Escudero has ruled that 16 votes are needed for conviction, based on the constitutional requirement that two-thirds of all Senate members must concur in an impeachment conviction.
At the time of the ruling, only 21 of the Senate’s 24 members were participating in the proceedings. Marcoleta and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada were detained over plunder charges, while Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa was in hiding amid an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court.
Marcoleta argued that a senator does not automatically lose his constitutional powers simply because he cannot physically appear in the chamber.
He cited the Senate’s impeachment rules, including provisions allowing a senator who is unable to personally cast a vote for a valid reason to communicate that vote through procedures approved by the chamber.
For Marcoleta, physical absence and loss of constitutional authority are two separate matters.
“Senators driven into hiding, detained, suspended, hospitalized but not permanently incapacitated or even temporarily abroad do not lose their seats in the Senate,” he said.
He further argued that the Senate can establish procedures allowing senators facing such circumstances to continue performing their constitutional duties.
Marcoleta also backed Escudero’s 16-vote threshold, saying the ruling was already the prevailing position of the impeachment court.
“There were 21 senator-judges present. No one objected to the foregoing ruling. It is therefore the prevailing ruling of the impeachment court,” he wrote.
But while defending the voting rights of detained senators, Marcoleta maintained his opposition to Escudero’s designation as presiding officer of the impeachment court.
The designation was approved by 12 of the 24 senators during a June 3 plenary session. The vote proceeded while the majority bloc led by then-majority leader Alan Peter Cayetano was absent.
The 12 senators who participated maintained that the quorum should be based on senators capable of attending the session.
Minority senators rejected that interpretation, insisting that quorum must be determined against the full 24-member Senate.
Marcoleta warned that the Constitution should not be altered through interpretations that create exceptions not expressly written into its provisions.
“The Senate cannot distort the plain meaning of the Constitution by supplying additional exceptions,” he said.
His position places the status of detained senators squarely before the impeachment court as it works through the rules governing Duterte’s trial.
The dispute over who may participate—and how their votes should be counted—could ultimately determine the numerical threshold the Senate must meet when it renders its judgment on the Vice President.
ia/xf
