By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court has scrapped its earlier fixed 16-vote requirement for convicting Vice President Sara Duterte, opening a new framework under which the constitutionally mandated two-thirds vote will be calculated from senator-judges who are legally and factually capable of participating when the verdict is rendered.
The court approved the new framework in a 13-1 vote Wednesday, with six senator-judges declining to participate in the vote.
The ruling does not formally reduce the Constitution’s two-thirds requirement.
Instead, it changes the pool from which the two-thirds figure is computed.
With four of the 24 senator-judges currently unable to substantially participate, a 20-member denominator would produce 13.33 votes. Under the court’s ruling, that fraction must be rounded upward, making 14 votes the requirement under the present circumstances.
The actual denominator, however, will depend on the court’s determination of which senators remain legally and factually capable of participating when the final vote is taken.
Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero cast the lone dissenting vote.
Escudero had previously ruled that 16 votes were needed, based on two-thirds of the Senate’s full 24-member composition.
Despite opposing the new interpretation, he said he would faithfully implement the court’s latest ruling in the remaining proceedings.
The ruling, he emphasized, is limited to Duterte’s impeachment trial and does not amend the Senate impeachment rules or automatically establish a binding formula for future impeachment cases.
Senator-judges Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Imee Marcos, Bong Go, Camille Villar and Robinhood Padilla did not participate in the vote.
They had previously maintained that the impeachment court should not reopen the question of how many votes are constitutionally required for conviction.
Mark Villar, the lone minority-bloc member among the 13 who supported the new framework, voted in favor.
The other 12 affirmative votes came from majority-bloc members.
The court’s new framework identifies circumstances that could justify excluding a senator from the voting denominator.
These include detention or suspension, legal restraints preventing the exercise of Senate functions, being sought by authorities with unknown whereabouts, physical or medical incapacity, being beyond the Senate’s coercive processes, and similar circumstances.
Four senator-judges have so far been unable to participate substantially in Duterte’s trial: Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, who are detained in connection with separate cases; Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, who has not attended amid an arrest order from the International Criminal Court; and Loren Legarda, who has been on extended medical leave.
The court will still have to determine, based on competent and sufficient evidence, whether a particular senator falls within the categories warranting exclusion.
For the House prosecution panel, the change in arithmetic does not alter its central task.
Rep. Chel Diokno said prosecutors would continue presenting evidence and defending the impeachment articles regardless of the number ultimately required for conviction.
The prosecution has maintained that its responsibility is to establish the allegations before the impeachment court rather than tailor its case around a particular voting threshold.
Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro said the panel expects to continue presenting evidence on Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth and is targeting completion of that presentation in October.
The prosecution is still assessing its remaining witnesses and whether additional evidence will be presented under Article 3, which covers the bribery allegations.
Duterte’s defense opposed the change, arguing that the Constitution expressly refers to “two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
Defense counsel Michael Poa warned that changing the calculation while the trial is already underway could create broader constitutional and due-process questions.
The defense has also argued that absence does not create a Senate vacancy and that a senator remains a member of the chamber even when unable to participate in the proceedings.
The disagreement reflects two competing readings of the constitutional phrase: whether “all members” means the Senate’s full membership regardless of participation, or whether senators who are legally and factually incapable of acting as senator-judges should be removed from the calculation.
Earlier legal opinions presented to the impeachment court were divided on the issue. Retired Chief Justices Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno and Hilario Davide Jr. supported a computation based on senators capable of participating, while retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna argued that all 24 senators should remain in the denominator.
The Senate ruling may not be the final word on the controversy.
Duterte’s defense team has said it is considering legal remedies, including a possible challenge before the Supreme Court.
For now, the impeachment court’s new framework governs the proceedings.
The two-thirds constitutional requirement remains on paper.
What has changed is the question at the heart of the dispute: who counts when that two-thirds is calculated.
ia/xf
