The Senate impeachment court resumed its 10th trial day on July 22, with Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero presiding and Senate President Win Gatchalian leading the opening prayer. Fourteen senators were present as Land Bank personnel prepared to testify on Article I of the impeachment complaint involving the alleged misuse of confidential funds. COURTESY: Senate of the Philippines/YouTube.
Before senator-judges decide whether Vice President Sara Duterte should be convicted or acquitted, they must first settle a question that could reshape the outcome of the impeachment trial: exactly how many votes constitute the required two-thirds majority?
The Senate impeachment court will devote separate proceedings this month to resolving that issue. Independent legal experts will be heard on Sept. 16, followed by oral arguments from the prosecution and defense on Sept. 23.
The review stems from Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo’s challenge to presiding officer Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s earlier interpretation that 16 votes are necessary for conviction. That figure assumes the constitutional requirement is calculated from the Senate’s entire 24-member composition.
But the circumstances surrounding four senators have complicated that arithmetic. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa is in hiding amid an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are detained on plunder charges, while Loren Legarda is abroad on extended medical leave.
The Constitution provides that conviction in an impeachment case requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all Senate members. What the impeachment court must now determine is whether senators who remain members of the chamber but cannot participate in the proceedings should still be included when computing that threshold.
Rather than put Tulfo’s appeal to an immediate vote, Escudero ordered a more extensive examination of the issue. The court will invite amici curiae, or friends of the court, to provide independent legal opinions before prosecutors and Duterte’s lawyers are each given 15 minutes to argue their positions.
There is no consensus among prominent legal figures. Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna has argued that membership, rather than attendance or participation, controls the calculation, which would preserve the 16-vote requirement. Retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio has taken the position that legal qualification to participate should figure into the computation.
Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Domingo Cayosa has also pointed to a distinction between being a senator and actually functioning as an impeachment judge. At the same time, he acknowledged that reading the constitutional language strictly could support a fixed threshold of 16.
Tulfo’s concern goes beyond simple attendance. He questioned whether keeping all 24 senators in the denominator could allow the absence of several members to influence the verdict even though they had not participated in hearing the case, potentially creating what he described as an “acquittal by default.”
The eventual ruling will carry consequences for both sides. Escudero noted that redefining the number constituting “all members” would alter not only the votes required to convict Duterte but also the corresponding threshold for acquittal.
The issue has become more urgent as the trial moves faster than previously expected, with prosecutors dropping their remaining witnesses under Article I and preparing to proceed to the unexplained wealth allegations under Article II.
By setting hearings before deciding the question, the impeachment court is effectively establishing the rules for the final count before the trial reaches that stage. Whatever interpretation senator-judges adopt could prove as consequential as the eventual votes themselves.