Sweet sixteen
Sara’s political opponents are doing this not really to serve the ends of justice but to potentially block her expected run for the presidency in 2028.
Text size
Sara’s political opponents are doing this not really to serve the ends of justice but to potentially block her expected run for the presidency in 2028.
Share
The Senate impeachment court should not lower the 16-vote conviction threshold for Vice President Sara Duterte just because it could not get the needed number to convict her. Changing the rules midtrial not only violates due process but also undermines the strict standard for removing a nationally elected official.
To begin with, the law is clear and free from any ambiguity. The phrase “all members of the Senate” is not really confusing, let alone vague and obscure.
In fact, if the intention of the Constitution is to cover those senator-judges who actually participate in the proceeding, then the pertinent provision would have expressly said so. As worded, it points to an absolute supermajority instead of a simple two-thirds majority. Otherwise, it would have said “all members of the Senate who actually participate.” This is a well-settled rule and one that does not even require a jurisprudential citation.
Incidentally, the Constitution used the term “two-thirds” as it does not really fix the number at 16. Why? Because there are instances when senators could lose their membership, such as when they resign, die, are removed, or accept an executive post. Getting suspended or even going AWOL is not considered a ground.
This is the reason why calls to revisit the threshold leave a bad taste in the mouth. There is nothing to reinterpret here. Applying the plain meaning rule, courts must simply interpret laws, contracts and legal documents using the exact, ordinary, everyday meaning of the words written on the page.
If it turns out that applying the law results in a travesty of justice, the remedy is amendment and not reframing or redefining the given text. Doing this blatantly undermines the basic legal principle that anchors our legal system.
Besides, what exactly is considered a travesty of justice here? Is it the fact that some senators could not participate and still be considered members? Or the fact that senator-judges have expressly prejudged this case and would vote not based on evidence but political alliance?
It is unfortunate that this exercise is being pursued for political ends. Sara’s political opponents are doing this not really to serve the ends of justice but to potentially block her expected run for the presidency in 2028.
Indeed, there is a reason why the provision leaves no room for further interpretation. If it allows the powers that be to construe it based on what suits their political interests, it would defeat the very purpose for which impeachment is established.
To be honest, the government would save a lot of money if the senator-judges stopped this proceeding and simply cast their votes. It is high time they publicly admitted that they are pursuing this simply for political ends.
