Ex-SC Justices Divided on Impeachment Conviction Threshold

MANILA, Philippines – Three out of four retired Supreme Court justices invited by the impeachment court to advise on the conviction threshold debate have taken the position that the number of votes required to remove an impeached official is not fixed at 16. Former chief justices Reynato Puno, Hilario Davide Jr., and Artemio Panganiban stated that the constitutional provision requiring a two-thirds vote of all members of the Senate does not automatically set the denominator at 24. Davide argued in a written position that framers of the Constitution would not have intended to include in "all members" those who cannot participate in impeachment hearings and deliberations, such as those outside the Philippines, whose whereabouts are unknown, or who are in hiding to avoid arrest. He added that senators with legal impediments or restraints, such as those facing plunder charges, should be excluded from the count. Currently, Senator Jinggoy Estrada is suspended from the Senate following his arrest on plunder charges. Senator Rodante Marcoleta is detained in a separate plunder case, and Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa is evading arrest in connection with a crimes-against-humanity case before the International Criminal Court. Senator Loren Legarda has also been on medical leave for several weeks, preventing her attendance. Panganiban suggested that the interpretation of charter framers should not necessarily prevail and must reflect the "common sense of the people," guided by truth and fairness. He questioned the fairness of allowing senators who are hiding, abroad, legally detained, or sick to vote without having accessed documents, heard testimonies, or observed witness demeanor. Puno contended that if the conviction threshold were fixed at 16, the Constitution should have explicitly stated so. He argued that the use of "two-thirds" implies that the number of votes needed to convict will vary depending on certain factors. In contrast, retired Supreme Court justice Adolfo Azcuna maintained the 16-vote conviction threshold. Azcuna asserted that the Senate should count all 24 members as the denominator for computing the two-thirds threshold, regardless of their participation in the trial. Azcuna explained that the framers intended the supermajority requirement to prevent impeachment from being used as a tool to remove political rivals, thereby overturning election results through legislative action rather than the ballot box. He warned that a simple majority threshold would allow convictions based on whichever coalition controls the chamber at any given moment, blurring the distinction between removal for cause and removal due to having the votes. He further emphasized that the two-thirds requirement forces convictions to rest on a coalition that transcends ordinary partisan lines, signaling that the wrongdoing is serious and broadly recognized. Azcuna also described the voting requirement as an internal check, stressing that the threshold must be fixed and determinable from the outset, not variable based on attendance. It remains to be seen if the impeachment court presiding officer’s initial ruling to maintain the 16-vote threshold will be sustained. However, the positions taken by these legal luminaries are expected to bolster the prosecution, which had been vocal about lowering the minimum number of senators required to convict Vice President Sara Duterte. Oral arguments on the subject are scheduled for September 23. – with reports from Sundy Locus/Rappler.com