Litmus test
The two-thirds vote requirement is not just a procedural technicality; it is a constitutional principle meant to ensure that any conviction reflects substantial consensus rather than a temporary majority.
Text size
The two-thirds vote requirement is not just a procedural technicality; it is a constitutional principle meant to ensure that any conviction reflects substantial consensus rather than a temporary majority.
The Senate impeachment court’s decision yesterday to lower the conviction threshold votes from 16 to 14, from a base of 24 to 20, in the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte may soon be challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote by the entire Senate, which means that for a 24-member body, 16 affirmative votes are necessary to convict. After hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defense, the Senate court affirmed the Constitution’s two-thirds vote requirement; however, the specific number of 16 votes may not apply in a vacancy case. A vacancy arises due to the death, resignation, disqualification, or expulsion of a senator.
The issue first came up early in the trial when Presiding Judge Chiz Escudero ruled and later reiterated that 16 votes were needed to convict, when Senator-judges Panfilo Lacson and Allan Peter Cayetano asked whether that was his ruling.
The two-thirds vote requirement is not just a procedural technicality; it is a constitutional principle meant to ensure that any conviction reflects substantial consensus rather than a temporary majority.
At the trial’s midpoint, several senators once again raised the issue and requested a new interpretation of the threshold. The interpretation considers the number of senator-judges present, as fewer senators are physically participating in the proceedings. The main issue, therefore, lies in interpretation.
But what caused the changes in the arithmetic and adjustments to the rule?
Several senators cannot participate in the trial. Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are currently in jail facing plunder charges. Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa is in hiding from an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant. Sen. Loren Legarda has been on medical leave since August. Are these absences a coincidence, or part of a deliberate effort to influence the trial?
For those of us who are not lawyers, it’s difficult to draw definitive conclusions. The process of convicting or acquitting a high-ranking official facing impeachment charges not only involves the personal integrity of the senators but also the Senate’s as an institution. The upcoming votes, therefore, will be a litmus test for the Senate, with the potential to either strengthen our democratic foundations or undermine them.
The prosecution believes it would be premature to bring the threshold issue before the Supreme Court before the vote on conviction, although the defense believes otherwise.
The complex political maneuvers could render the impeachment process susceptible to manipulation. However, the call for a definitive interpretation of the Constitution ultimately safeguards against such abuses. I agree that the matter is not merely a political question, but a legal matter that requires clear judicial review later on.
We can only hope the trial will continue to focus on fairness and deliver a ruling that reflects the principles of justice. We rely on the wisdom of each senator to determine whether there is convincing and overwhelming evidence to support a conviction.
For feedback, text to 09451450681 or email cynchdb@gmail.com.
