MANILA (October 29) — Lawyer Israelito P. Torreon has welcomed a Supreme Court directive requiring respondents to comment within a non-extendible period of five days on a petition challenging the Senate impeachment court’s revised voting formula for convicting Vice President Sara Duterte.
Torreon, counsel for the petitioners, said the directive covering their petition and application for a status quo ante order indicated that the constitutional question deserved serious and urgent consideration.
However, he cautioned against interpreting the Court’s action as a ruling in their favor, emphasizing that the Supreme Court had not yet given due course to the petition or acted on the request for interim relief.
“We are hopeful, but we do not presume to anticipate how the Court will rule,” Torreon said in his statement, adding that the petitioners would respect whatever decision the Court ultimately makes.
The petition challenges the September 23 ruling of the Senate impeachment court that changed how the constitutionally required two-thirds vote for conviction would be calculated.
JULY 6 RULING SET 16-VOTE THRESHOLD
The dispute began on July 6, when Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, acting as presiding officer of the impeachment court, ruled that 16 votes would be required to convict Duterte.
The ruling was based on Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that no person shall be convicted in an impeachment trial without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
With 24 senators, the required two-thirds majority translates to 16 votes.
The interpretation remained in effect for more than two months before the impeachment court reconsidered the matter following an appeal by Senator Erwin Tulfo.
On September 23, the impeachment court adopted a revised interpretation allowing the exclusion of senators deemed legally or factually unable to participate in the proceedings when determining the required votes for conviction.
The revised interpretation was approved by a vote of 13-1, with six senator-judges not participating.
Escudero cast the lone vote against the revised interpretation.
Senators Robinhood Padilla and Christopher Lawrence “Bong” Go, who are among the petitioners challenging the ruling, were among those who did not participate in the September 23 vote.
FOUR SENATORS AT THE CENTER OF THE DISPUTE
The dispute concerns whether senators who remain incumbent members of the Senate but cannot participate in the proceedings should still be counted when determining the two-thirds threshold.
Four senators identified in contemporaneous reports as potentially affecting the calculation were Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, Rodante Marcoleta, Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Loren Legarda.
Dela Rosa’s whereabouts became uncertain amid efforts to serve an International Criminal Court arrest warrant. Marcoleta and Estrada were reported to be detained in connection with separate plunder cases, while Legarda was on extended medical leave abroad.
The circumstances surrounding the four senators have become central to the debate over whether membership in the Senate should be distinguished from the ability to participate in a particular proceeding.
Torreon maintains that the Constitution counts all incumbent members of the Senate, regardless of their physical presence or ability to attend the proceedings.
“With 24 incumbent senators, conviction requires 16 votes,” he said.
He argued that only death, resignation, expulsion or another lawful removal from office changes Senate membership for purposes of determining the constitutional threshold.
The petitioners contend that the revised interpretation effectively changes the constitutional voting requirement by allowing the number of votes necessary for conviction to depend on which senators are considered capable of participating.
PADILLA, GO AND OTHER PETITIONERS SEEK SC INTERVENTION
The petition challenging the September 23 ruling was filed on October 6, according to reports published the following day.
The principal petitioners include Senators Padilla and Go, the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban), former Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi, Torreon and other lawyers and individuals.
They are asking the Supreme Court to nullify the revised interpretation and restore the 16-vote requirement.
The petition also seeks interim relief through a status quo ante order or temporary restraining order to prevent implementation of the challenged ruling while the case is pending.
The petitioners argue that the Constitution expressly requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all Senate members for conviction and that the threshold should not be altered during an ongoing impeachment trial.
They maintain that a senator’s detention, illness, absence or inability to participate does not automatically terminate membership in the Senate.
EARLIER PETITIONS DISMISSED
The Supreme Court on September 30 dismissed three separate petitions challenging the Senate impeachment court’s interpretation of the two-thirds voting requirement.
The petitions were filed by former Executive Secretary Victor D. Rodriguez, Berteni Cataluña Causing and lawyer Ernesto B. Francisco Jr.
The Court cited procedural grounds, including lack of standing and prematurity.
The dismissals did not constitute a substantive ruling affirming the constitutionality of the revised voting formula.
Torreon noted that earlier petitions challenging the same ruling had been dismissed outright, while the latest petition prompted the Supreme Court to require the respondents to submit comments within a specified period.
He nevertheless cautioned that the directive should not be treated as a determination of the petition’s merits.
TORREON: ISSUE GOES BEYOND ONE OFFICIAL
Torreon emphasized that the petition does not ask the Supreme Court to determine Duterte’s guilt or innocence.
That question, he said, remains within the Senate’s authority in the impeachment proceedings.
Instead, the petitioners are asking the Court to examine whether the Senate impeachment court correctly applied the constitutional requirement for conviction.
“We are not asking the Court to decide whether the Vice President is guilty or innocent. That remains with the Senate. We ask only that the Senate count its Members the way the Constitution counts them,” Torreon said.
He argued that the case raises a broader constitutional question about whether a safeguard expressly written into the Constitution can be altered through a majority vote during an ongoing proceeding.
“This is not about one case or one official. It is about whether a constitutional safeguard can be lowered by a simple majority whenever the numbers become inconvenient,” he said.
The Supreme Court’s directive requiring the respondents to comment within five days does not, by itself, grant the petition or suspend the challenged Senate ruling.
The Court has yet to determine the petition’s merits and the request for interim relief.
