THE IMPEACHMENT trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, currently underway in the Senate, has reached a critical juncture that tests the intersection of law, politics, and mathematics.
On September 16, 2026, the Senate paused its regular proceedings to consult with former Supreme Court Chief Justices Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno, and Hilario Davide Jr., as well as retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, acting as amici curiae or “friends of the court”.
At the heart of these deliberations is a fundamental question of constitutional arithmetic: Is the two-thirds threshold required to convict a fixed number (16 out of 24 senators) or is it a moving target that changes based on the number of senators capable of participating in the proceedings?
The majority of the consulted legal experts Chief Justices Panganiban, Puno, and Davide argued against the rigidity of a fixed number.
Panganiban famously remarked that “reality… changes the denominator” in mathematics, suggesting that the court must look beyond a literal reading of the Constitution to its underlying intent and purpose.
Their perspective posits that the legitimacy of the impeachment process relies on the active participation of senator-judges who have thoroughly engaged with the evidence.
If the Senate cannot realistically exercise its power with a full complement, a strict adherence to a “fixed 16” might undermine the very purpose of the impeachment mechanism.
However, the perspective offered by Justice Azcuna introduces a necessary note of caution. While he acknowledged that this is an internal matter for the Senate to decide, he warned that a fluid voting threshold is inherently open to abuse. A changeable number could be manipulated by ruling political factions, potentially compromising the impartiality that such a trial requires.
This creates a difficult dilemma for the Senate. If they adopt a flexible threshold, they risk accusations of convenience; if they stick to a rigid one, they risk gridlock.
As the trial progresses, the Senate must remember that it is acting not merely as a legislative body, but as a court of record. The amici curiae have provided the legal scaffolding, but the final structure of this decision rests with the senators.
Regardless of whether they settle on a fixed or moving denominator, the ultimate standard of success will be whether their decision is perceived as a triumph of constitutional integrity over political expediency.
The public, observing from outside the Senate floor, remains waiting for a process that prizes truth over power. (totingbunye2000@gmail.com)/PN
