Impeach court 13-1 vote on threshold not equal to

Impeach court 13-1 vote on threshold not equal to | Daily Tribune

“No. That doesn’t mean the vote yesterday automatically translates into a conviction vote. That is far from the case,” Gatchalian told reporters in an ambush interview.

Critics claimed the decision to convict the VP is already predetermined, as the impeachment court’s recent decision suggests, but Gatchalian quickly rejected the speculation, noting the trial is still underway.

The Senate leader insisted that the outcome ultimately depends on the strength of the evidence and witness testimony for both the defense and the prosecution. Duterte’s lawyers have yet to present their witnesses and evidence, as it is still the prosecution’s turn.

Until such time, no final decision from the senators-judge is guaranteed, Gatchalian said.

“We’re still far from that. When it comes to the verdict, it’s about the evidence, it's about the testimonies…Let’s remember there's still defense [which] will argue that the allegations are baseless… We still have a few steps to go through before we get to the voting,” he remarked.

Escudero was the lone senator to cast a dissenting vote to reverse his earlier decision, maintaining that conviction required 16 votes despite the absence of four of their colleagues.

Detained, in hiding senators can vote if physically present

Meanwhile, only Senator Mark Villar from the Senate opposition bloc voted in favor of overturning the decision.

Senators Alan Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Bong Go, Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla, and Camille Villar boycotted the voting in protest.

Shortly after the voting on Wednesday, Senator Erwin Tulfo clarified what he called a “misunderstanding” over the media’s interpretation of the new threshold.

Tulfo claimed that the impeachment court upheld the constitutionally mandated two-thirds requirement for a conviction because the new decision did not bar their colleagues, who missed a substantial part of the proceedings, from casting their votes on the day of judgment, tentatively set for December.

Under the present ruling, the impeachment court will base the two-thirds requirement on the concurrence of members who, at the time of voting, are legally and factually capable of participating in the impeachment proceedings.

As a result, senator-judges who are detained, suspended, suffering from physical or medical incapacity, whose whereabouts are unknown, and beyond the Senate’s coercive reach will be excluded in the computation.

Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are both detained on plunder charges, while Senator Bato dela Rosa remains in hiding as he evades an International Criminal Court warrant. They have been unable to attend Duterte’s trial since it began on 6 July.

Senator Loren Legarda, meanwhile, has missed the proceedings since 3 August after going on a medical leave abroad. She has since extended her leave amid a preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman into plunder and graft complaints.

Senate won't ask Sandiganbayan

Gatchalian and Tulfo explained that the latest decision does not strictly apply to the minority bloc, because even members of the majority cannot be excluded from voting if they are no-shows on judgment day.

They noted that minority senators could vote as long as they were physically present in the impeachment courtroom.

Gatchalian acknowledged that while being physically present at the trial and observing the demeanor of the parties gives senator-judges leverage to evaluate the impeachment case, he said they cannot strictly impose the same on their colleagues as a consideration in their legal battles.

Nonetheless, Gatchalian said the Senate impeachment court will not interfere with their legal cases by asking the Sandiganbayan to temporarily release Estrada and Marcoleta to attend the trial, citing separation of powers.

“We already knew what the Sandiganbayan’s response will be. Besides, there is already a Supreme Court ruling that if you are under the court's jurisdiction, you cannot perform your duties. That is a settled matter before the Supreme Court,” he said.

Earlier this week, Marcoleta announced that he would forgo seeking a court furlough (temporary release) to participate in the impeachment, as he continued to protest the legality of the proceedings.

Marcoleta strongly opposed Escudero’s appointment as presiding officer, and maintained that the 16-vote requirement for conviction must be maintained regardless of how many senators attend the trial.

Estrada, meanwhile, failed to convince the Sandiganbayan to temporarily release him to join the impeachment proceedings. The anti-graft court ruled that there was no emergency or compelling reason to grant his request, especially given that his suspension for plunder prevents him from performing his duties.