Something was refreshing about the appearance of the four former Supreme Court justices before the Senate impeachment court: they came not to decide the case, but to help the senator-judges understand the constitutional question before them.
And on that score, the amici curiae did a commendable job.
Former Chief Justices Hilario Davide Jr., Artemio Panganiban and Reynato Puno, together with retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, were invited to shed light on one of the most consequential questions confronting the impeachment court — whether the requirement of a two-thirds vote means an absolute 16 votes out of 24 senators, or whether the computation can change depending on which senators are legally qualified to participate.
The beauty of the exercise was that the former magistrates did not pretend to be the senator-judges.
They presented legal arguments. They explained constitutional language. They answered questions. They offered their respective interpretations.
But they left the ultimate decision where it belongs — with the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
That distinction is important.
Three of the former justices took the position that the 16-vote requirement is not necessarily an immutable number when the circumstances affecting the participation of senator-judges are considered. Azcuna, meanwhile, took a different view, maintaining that all sitting senators should remain part of the denominator. Davide submitted his position through a memorandum.
In other words, the amici did not hand the Senate a convenient political answer wrapped in legal language.
They gave the senator-judges something far more valuable: a legal framework from which to make their own judgment.
That is precisely how an independent Senate impeachment court should operate.
The issue of 16 votes versus a lower threshold is obviously not merely mathematical. Behind the numbers is a constitutional question that could have consequences well beyond this particular impeachment trial.
Which is why the senator-judges should resist the temptation to treat the amici’s opinions as instructions.
They are guidance, not commands.
The former justices have done their part. They have illuminated the constitutional road, pointed out the possible turns and explained the legal terrain.
Now the senator-judges must walk that road themselves.
They must decide based on the Constitution, the rules of the impeachment court, the facts established in the proceedings, and their own understanding of their constitutional duty.
Whatever number ultimately emerges — 16 or otherwise — it should be the product of the Senate’s considered judgment, not political convenience.
The amici curiae have opened the door.
It is now the senator-judges who must decide whether, and how, to walk through it.
