Petitions questioning impeachment vote threshold dismissed on procedural grounds, leaving Senate ruling in force
MANILA (October 1) — THE Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Senate Impeachment Court to proceed under its disputed interpretation of the two-thirds vote required to convict Vice President Sara Duterte, dismissing three petitions that sought to overturn the rule.
The Supreme Court En Banc dismissed the petitions filed separately by Victor D. Rodriguez, Berteni Cataluña Causing and lawyer Ernesto B. Francisco Jr. on procedural grounds, including lack of standing and prematurity.
The Court’s action leaves intact, for now, the impeachment court’s Sept. 23 ruling that the constitutional phrase “all the Members of the Senate” refers only to senators who are legally and factually capable of participating when the judgment is rendered.
That interpretation moved the impeachment court away from a fixed 16-vote requirement, which represents two-thirds of the full 24-member Senate.
Court did not settle the constitutional dispute
The dismissal, however, did not amount to a Supreme Court ruling that the Senate’s interpretation is constitutionally correct.
The petitions challenged whether the impeachment court could effectively change the constitutional basis for computing the two-thirds requirement.
Rodriguez argued that the Senate tribunal had introduced a qualification not found in the Constitution and asked the Court to nullify the ruling and stop its implementation.
Causing argued that senators remain members of the Senate even when they are detained, medically unable to attend or otherwise absent, and should therefore remain part of the denominator.
Francisco likewise argued that because the Senate has 24 members, conviction requires at least 16 senator-judges, regardless of temporary absence or inability to participate.
The Supreme Court did not resolve those competing constitutional interpretations when it dismissed the petitions.
Impeachment proceedings can proceed
The immediate consequence is procedural: absent a restraining order or other intervention, the Senate Impeachment Court can continue the trial under its Sept. 23 interpretation.
The House prosecution had earlier said the proceedings should continue unless the Supreme Court issued a TRO or injunction.
Senate Impeachment Court spokesman Reginad Tongol said the tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court ruling and would continue performing its constitutional mandate.
The dismissal therefore removes the three challenges as an immediate obstacle to the proceedings, but it does not erase the underlying constitutional debate over how a two-thirds vote should be calculated.
For the public, the distinction matters: the Supreme Court has allowed the Senate impeachment process to move forward under the existing rule, but it has not declared that rule constitutionally valid on the merits.
Separate challenge to postponed barangay polls
In a separate case, the Supreme Court ordered respondents to comment within a non-extendible five calendar days on a petition challenging Republic Act 12326, the law postponing the 2026 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections to November 2028.
The petition was filed by election lawyer Romulo Macalintal against the Office of the President, Senate, House of Representatives and Commission on Elections.
The two cases put separate constitutional and electoral questions before the high court: one over how an impeachment conviction is counted, and another over the government’s authority to defer scheduled local elections.
