3 ex-SC justices: Conviction threshold not automatically 16 votes

MANILA, Philippines — Three out of the four retired Supreme Court justices invited as "amici curiae" or “friends of the court” to Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial on Wednesday agreed that the minimum number of votes needed for conviction is not automatically set at 16. The three who expressed similar views were former Supreme Court Associate Justices Adolfo Azcuna, Antonio Nachura, and Rodil Zalameda. Meanwhile, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza maintained that the impeachment court should be composed of 23 justices, citing Section 16, Article XI of the Constitution. He argued that if the impeachment court is composed of 23 justices, then 12 votes are needed to convict. Azcuna, Nachura, and Zalameda pointed out that the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, is composed of 24 senators, including the Senate President. They said that the number of votes needed for conviction is not fixed at 16, but rather depends on the number of senators present and voting in the impeachment court. "The number of votes required for conviction is not fixed at 16. It depends on the number of senators who will vote. If all 24 senators will vote, then you need 13 votes to convict," Azcuna said. Nachura agreed, stating that the impeachment court is composed of the entire Senate, and the votes needed for conviction would be a majority of those present and voting. Zalameda also concurred, explaining that the impeachment court is not a fixed number of justices but rather the entire Senate. "The number of votes required for conviction is a majority of those present and voting," he said. The issue of the conviction threshold has been a key point of discussion in the impeachment trial, with legal experts and former justices offering their interpretations of the constitutional provisions governing impeachment proceedings. The impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte is ongoing, and the Supreme Court's "friends of the court" are providing valuable insights into the legal intricacies of the process. The differing opinions highlight the complexity of constitutional law and its application in high-profile cases. Source: Inquirer NewsInfo