Senator Mark Villar was the lone member of the Senate minority bloc to vote in favor of overturning the 6 July ruling that fixed at 16 the number of votes needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte in her impeachment trial.

The Senate impeachment court voted 13-1 on Wednesday to overturn Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s earlier interpretation that the Constitution required the concurrence of 16 senator-judges, or two-thirds of the full 24-member Senate, to convict Duterte.

Six senator-judges — Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Bong Go, Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla and Camille Villar — did not participate in the threshold vote. Mark Villar joined 12 other senator-judges in voting to reverse the fixed 16-vote rule, while Escudero cast the lone dissenting vote.

The vote stemmed from Sen. Erwin Tulfo’s 8 September appeal questioning whether senators who are legally or factually unable to participate in the proceedings should still be counted in determining the two-thirds threshold.

“The chair nonetheless accepts it as a decision of this court, and is bound to give it effect… The presiding officer, after all, is not the court,” Escudero said after the vote.

“This is the essence of democracy, that disagreement be preserved without obstruction and that lawful resolve be obeyed without resentment.”

Under the new ruling, senators who are detained, suspended, physically or medically incapacitated, whose whereabouts are unknown and are beyond the Senate’s coercive reach, or are otherwise legally or factually unable to participate may be excluded from the denominator.

The impeachment court will therefore calculate the constitutional two-thirds requirement based on senators who, at the time of the final vote, remain legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings.

The ruling does not automatically set a new fixed numerical threshold. Escudero said the court must first determine, based on competent and sufficient evidence, which senators may properly be excluded.

If the denominator is 20, for example, two-thirds is 13.33. Escudero said the figure must be rounded up, meaning 14 votes would be required for conviction.

Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are detained while facing separate plunder cases. Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa has also been absent amid an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, while Sen. Loren Legarda has been on medical leave abroad.

‘Won’t blame Mark’

Before the threshold vote, Alan Peter Cayetano sought to prevent the impeachment court from proceeding, arguing that the issue should instead be resolved by the Supreme Court.

His move was rejected, with 13 senator-judges voting against it and six supporting it. Mark Villar abstained.

After the court went on a lunch break, Alan Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Go, Marcos, Padilla and Camille Villar did not return to participate in the threshold vote.

Marcos later said she could not blame Mark Villar for breaking with the minority bloc, citing what she described as pressure being exerted on opposition senators.

“We know what he’s going through... You know what’s happening to the minority. We’re all being relentlessly attacked,” Marcos told reporters in Filipino during the break.

Members of the Villar family are also facing graft complaints over allegedly disadvantageous joint venture agreements involving PrimeWater Infrastructure Corp. and local water districts. The complaints remain subject to proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Alan Cayetano has repeatedly accused the administration of using legal pressure against members of the opposition, an allegation the administration has denied.

“Let’s stop tinkering with the Constitution... What is this, a race? Is it some kind of finish line? If you can't reach the finish line, do you move it closer to you? That’s not how it works. You have to follow it,” Marcos said.

Before the vote, Marcos argued that the denominator should remain all 24 sitting senators.

She maintained that the Constitution deliberately set a high threshold for conviction to insulate impeachment from partisan political considerations.

“As a Marcos, I never expected that I would have to defend the Constitution against my father. But that is the supreme law of our land. The limitation set by the Constitution on the impeachment court is clear — it cannot be altered by the majority at its own whim,” Marcos said.

‘Bring it to the SC’

Camille Villar and Go likewise maintained that the two-thirds requirement should be based on all members of the Senate and should not fluctuate depending on how many senator-judges are available to participate.

Pia Cayetano, meanwhile, reiterated her position that questions involving the constitutional meaning of “all the Members of the Senate” should ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court.

“This is not within the authority of the impeachment court,” she said.

The Senate impeachment court earlier sought opinions from four amici curiae, or friends of the court, to help senator-judges interpret Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution.

The experts differed on how the phrase “all the Members of the Senate” should be applied. Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna argued that the denominator should remain at 24 as long as all senators continue to hold office, while the other amici offered approaches that could allow the denominator to change under certain circumstances.

Alan Cayetano likewise warned that revisiting the threshold midway through the proceedings could raise jurisdictional questions and argued that the Supreme Court should settle the constitutional dispute.

The new threshold formula applies only to Duterte’s impeachment trial. Escudero described the ruling as pro hac vice, or for this occasion, meaning it does not automatically bind future impeachment courts.

Conviction in an impeachment trial results in removal from office and may include disqualification from holding public office, depending on the judgment of the Senate.