A group led by Senators Robinhood Padilla and Christopher “Bong” Go has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to restore the 16-vote threshold for convicting Vice President Sara Duterte in her impeachment trial, arguing that the Constitution requires two-thirds of the full 24-member Senate.
In a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed Tuesday and docketed as G.R. No. E-08751, the petitioners challenged the Senate Impeachment Court’s September 23 ruling that abandoned the fixed 16-vote requirement and instead based the two-thirds threshold on senators legally and factually capable of participating when judgment is rendered.
The Impeachment Court voted 13-1, with six Senator-Judges not participating, to reverse its July 6 ruling that had set 16 votes as the required number for conviction.
The petitioners argued that the Constitution leaves no room for changing the voting base depending on the number of senators able to participate in the proceedings.
They cited Article VI, Section 2, which provides that the Senate “shall be composed of twenty-four Senators,” and Article XI, Section 3(6), which states that no person may be convicted in an impeachment case “without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
“This case is not about whether the Vice President should be convicted or acquitted. It is about the number the Constitution requires before any conviction can lawfully be rendered,” the petitioners said.
“With twenty-four Senators, that is sixteen,” they added.
The group maintained that a senator remains a member of the Senate even when absent, detained, ill or otherwise unable to participate. It said none of the 24 Senate seats has been vacated.
The petition also emphasized the phrase “all the Members” in the Constitution, arguing that it does not refer only to senators who are present, voting or capable of participating at the time of judgment.
The Senate Impeachment Court, however, ruled that the two-thirds requirement should be computed based on senators who remain legally and factually capable of participating when judgment is rendered. The ruling covers situations involving detention, suspension, legal restraint, medical incapacity and other circumstances that prevent a Senator-Judge from participating.
The petitioners warned that allowing the number of votes required for conviction to fluctuate based on participation could effectively modify the supermajority requirement set by the Constitution.
They stressed that they are not asking the SC to rule on whether Duterte should be convicted or acquitted, but only on the constitutionality of the voting threshold.
The petitioners also sought to distinguish their case from three earlier challenges dismissed by the SC on September 30 on procedural grounds, including issues involving standing and prematurity.
They argued that the present petition has a different legal footing because Padilla and Go are sitting Senator-Judges whose votes, seats and oaths are directly affected by the disputed ruling.
PDP-Laban, represented by Chairman Alfonso Cusi, also joined the petition. The party argued that it has an interest in the case because senators who could be excluded from the voting base under the new formula include Senator Rodante D. Marcoleta, whose candidacy it supported, and Senator Ronald M. dela Rosa, an active party member.
The petitioners further argued that the issue is no longer premature because the September 23 ruling has been adopted as the “new controlling ruling” for the remainder of the impeachment proceedings.
Also listed as petitioners are lawyers Israelito P. Torreon, James Patrick Bondoc, Ferdinand S. Topacio, Raul L. Lambino and Resci Angelli R. Rizada-Nolasco, as well as Philip Salvador.
Named respondents are the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, Presiding Officer Senator Francis G. Escudero, and the House of Representatives.
The petition also includes an urgent plea for a Status Quo Ante Order and/or Temporary Restraining Order, as well as a writ of preliminary injunction, to stop implementation of the disputed voting formula while the SC considers the constitutional challenge.
