By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, dismissed three separate petitions challenging the Senate Impeachment Court’s interpretation of the constitutional two-thirds voting requirement for conviction in an impeachment case.
The petitions were filed by Victor D. Rodriguez, Berteni Cataluña Causing and Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco Jr., all of whom questioned the Senate Impeachment Court’s September 23 ruling that the phrase “all the Members of the Senate” under Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Constitution refers only to senators who are legally and actually able to participate in the impeachment proceedings at the time of the vote.
The SC dismissed the petitions on procedural grounds, including lack of standing and prematurity.
In G.R. No. E-08529, Rodriguez challenged the Senate Impeachment Court’s interpretation, arguing that it effectively amended the Constitution by adding a qualification that does not appear in the constitutional text.
He asked the SC to nullify the Senate ruling and declare that any change to the constitutional voting requirement must undergo the prescribed process for constitutional amendment or revision. He also sought a temporary restraining order against implementation of the ruling.
Causing, in G.R. No. E-00729, argued that senators who remain in office should continue to be counted even if they are in hiding, detained, medically unable to attend, or otherwise unable to participate in the proceedings.
He sought a status quo ante order and/or TRO to prevent any final vote on Vice President Sara Duterte’s conviction while his petition was pending.
Causing also asked the SC to compel Senators Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada Jr., Rodante Marcoleta and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa to participate in the impeachment trial and for the Senate to take steps to secure their attendance.
Francisco raised a similar constitutional argument in G.R. No. E-08543, maintaining that because the Constitution provides for a 24-member Senate, conviction requires the concurrence of at least 16 senator-judges.
He argued that senators who are detained, on medical leave or temporarily absent remain members of the Senate and should therefore be included in determining the required vote.
Francisco likewise sought an SQAO while the SC considered his petition.
Separately, the SC acted on G.R. No. E-08557 filed by veteran election lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal against the Office of the President, Senate, House of Representatives and Commission on Elections.
Instead of immediately resolving the case, the SC directed the respondents to comment on Macalintal’s petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 12326, including his request for a TRO and/or SQAO.
The respondents were given a non-extendible period of five calendar days from notice to submit their comments.
RA 12326, enacted on September 24, 2026, sets the terms of barangay officials and Sangguniang Kabataan members at five years and moves the November 2026 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections to November 2028.
Macalintal argues that the law infringes on the electorate’s right to vote by postponing the 2026 BSKE while extending the tenure of incumbent barangay and SK officials.
He contends that the measure effectively permits incumbent officials to remain in office from December 2025 until November 2028.
The SC said copies of the available pleadings may be accessed through its Current Cases section.
ia/xf
