Sparks start flying over threshold row

Even before the Senate impeachment court could begin consulting constitutional experts, debates over the conviction threshold have already erupted, with opposing camps clashing over the number of votes required.

Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp maintains the voting threshold should be based strictly on what the Constitution says.

“It should not be changed. That’s it. The friends of the court (amici curiae) will appear next week, on Wednesday, to offer different interpretations of the relevant constitutional provision on the number of votes needed for conviction,” lawyer Salvador Paulo Panelo Jr., Duterte’s lawyer, said. He was designated as her spokesperson two days ago.

“For me, we should respect the opinions of the amici curiae, but the constitutional provision should not be studied in a vacuum. It should be examined in its proper context,” Panelo added.

He said it should be viewed against the backdrop of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. leading the effort to file cases against senators he may feel would vote for Duterte’s acquittal.

“The campaign against corruption has been selective. Like, for example, I remember there were already announcements for cases to be filed against Senator Joel Villanueva and Senator Chiz Escudero,” Panelo said.

He said Escudero and Villanueva have since voted with the majority, while Senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada did not vote.

“I don’t know if Senator Legarda’s departure is related,” he added.

“Maybe there’s some basis to lower the threshold, but why is lowering the threshold being considered? It’s because some senators are not able to participate, not voluntarily but involuntarily, because cases are being filed against them, left and right. These are even non-bailable,” Panelo said.

Different strokes

Former University of the East College of Law Dean Amado Valdez’s opinion is split on the constitutional rule.

“I think Bato (Senator Ronald de la Rosa) not counting in the ballgame is doable and defensible. By disregarding the law, he cannot invoke the Constitution. Senator Loren Legarda should be asked to justify her medical leave, otherwise, the abandonment of her duties forfeits her right.

Senators Marcoleta and Estrada are a gray zone — it could be argued both ways,” he said.

Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Fredderick Vida maintained that filing charges against violators of the law cannot be considered selective justice, as he insisted the government’s implementation of the law is intended to maintain order.

Criminal cases against Vice President Duterte and former Speaker Martin Romualdez are based on evidence and applicable laws, he said.

The DoJ and its prosecutors follow the rules of the criminal justice system and act on cases based on the evidence presented, he added.

“The Department of Justice is the premier law agency of the country,” Vida said.

He said Duterte is facing a grave threats case because the evidence warranted its filing and prosecution.

“Our basis is the provisions of existing laws. The criminal justice system has established rules, and one of these covers grave threats. This is the issue being faced by Vice President Duterte,” Vida said.

Vida also cited the Office of the Ombudsman’s recent filing of a plunder case against Romualdez, saying the case resulted from evidence gathered by investigators.

“A few days ago, the Office of the Ombudsman filed a case against former Speaker Romualdez, and this was also based on the evidence,” Vida said.