Former Chief Justice: Counting absent senators in impeachment voting threshold unfair

The question of whether to include senators who did not participate in the impeachment trial of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte in the voting threshold has sparked debate. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban stated that allowing absent senators to be counted in determining the threshold for conviction would be "unfair, if not unjust, to the Filipino people." Responding to a question from Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson on Day 26 of Duterte's impeachment trial, Panganiban asserted that "fairness [in judgment] can be rendered by two-thirds of those present [Senators]." At least four incumbent senators have been unable to participate in the impeachment proceedings. He emphasized that absent senators were "not in a position to know the truth," and their participation in judgment would be unfair to the people. "Those (truth and fairness) are the standards, simple standards," Panganiban said. Meanwhile, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna warned of a potential Supreme Court challenge if fewer than 16 votes are used as the threshold for conviction. He noted that the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of all members of the Senate for conviction, and basing the threshold on participating senators only could be unconstitutional. Azcuna elaborated, "Supposing there is a judgment of conviction based on 23 instead of 24. Two-thirds of 23. That's 15... 15 votes to convict. And the Senate said convicted. That conviction ruling based on 15 votes could be reversed by the Supreme Court because it is a violation of the Constitution because it is not two-thirds of all the members." This issue raises significant questions regarding the interpretation of voting thresholds in impeachment trials and their alignment with constitutional provisions.