MANILA — The Senate impeachment court’s controversial formula allowing fewer than 16 votes to potentially convict Vice President Sara Duterte will remain in force after the Supreme Court dismissed three challenges against it — without ruling on whether the formula itself is constitutional.
The dismissal leaves undisturbed the impeachment court’s September 23 ruling that the constitutional two-thirds requirement will be computed based only on senators who are legally and factually capable of participating when judgment is rendered, rather than automatically on the full 24-member Senate.
Impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol portrayed the Supreme Court action as reinforcing the Senate tribunal’s authority to proceed with Duterte’s impeachment trial.
“The Supreme Court’s prompt dismissal of these cases on procedural grounds — specifically, lack of standing and prematurity — effectively confirms the interpretations and proceedings of the Senate Impeachment Court are constitutionally bulletproof,” Tongol said in a statement.
However, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the petitions or determine whether the impeachment court’s interpretation of the constitutional voting requirement is correct.
Instead, the high court dismissed the petitions on procedural grounds, including lack of standing and prematurity.
Tongol nevertheless said the dismissal prevents the challenges from disrupting the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
“By junking these challenges, the Highest Court has drawn a definitive firewall around the independence of the Senate as an Impeachment Court,” he said.
He added that the Senate tribunal would continue implementing its September 23 ruling.
“The Impeachment Court’s September 23 ruling stands undisturbed and shall continue to perform its constitutional mandate to solely try and decide the impeachment case before it without unnecessary stalling or external distractions,” he said.
The petitions were filed separately by former Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez, Berteni Cataluña Causing and lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr., who challenged the impeachment court’s interpretation of the constitutional requirement that two-thirds of all members of the Senate must concur to convict an impeached official.
The Senate impeachment court had initially interpreted the requirement as two-thirds of the full 24-member chamber, meaning at least 16 votes were necessary for conviction.
But on September 23, the tribunal abandoned the fixed 16-vote threshold and ruled that only senators legally and factually capable of participating in the impeachment proceedings when the verdict is rendered would be included in determining the voting base.
Under the ruling, senators who are detained, suspended, medically incapacitated or otherwise legally or factually unable to participate may be excluded from the denominator used to calculate the required two-thirds vote.
This means the number of votes necessary for conviction could fall below 16 depending on how many senators are qualified to participate when the impeachment court votes on Duterte’s case.
The petitioners disputed that interpretation.
Rodriguez argued that the impeachment court effectively modified the Constitution by introducing a qualification not found in its text, while Causing maintained that incumbent senators should still be counted even if they are detained, in hiding or medically unable to attend.
Francisco likewise argued that because the Constitution establishes a 24-member Senate, conviction requires the concurrence of at least 16 senator-judges.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal did not settle that constitutional dispute.
For now, however, the Senate impeachment court’s September 23 formula remains controlling as Duterte’s impeachment trial proceeds./PN
