THE Senate impeachment court trying Vice President Sara Duterte faces a deceptively simple yet profoundly consequential constitutional question: How many votes are actually required to convict her?
Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution states that no impeached official may be convicted without the concurrence of “two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
For a 24-member chamber, Presiding Officer Francis Escudero previously ruled this means a fixed threshold of 16 votes.
However, a major controversy has emerged over whether “all the members” must strictly mean 24, even when several senators cannot legally or physically participate.
Currently, four senators are unable to perform their duties: Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are detained on plunder charges, Ronald dela Rosa is in hiding from the International Criminal Court, and Loren Legarda remains on medical leave.
Appearing as amici curiae, retired Supreme Court Chief Justices Hilario Davide Jr., Reynato Puno, and Artemio Panganiban argued that applying a rigid 16-vote requirement defies common sense and defeats the Constitution’s spirit.
Davide, a 1986 Constitutional Commission member, noted that past rulings prohibit detained officers from performing official functions; thus, the denominator should reflect only qualified, participating members.
Conversely, retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna maintained that all 24 senators must remain in the denominator unless removed by death, resignation, or expulsion.
Echoing this rigid view, former presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo warned that altering the threshold through internal court rules is unconstitutional and could expose senators to legal challenges.
Panelo stressed that the two-thirds requirement is a fixed safeguard that can only be adjusted through permanent membership reduction or constitutional amendment.
This trial transcends immediate political interests.
The Senate must resist tailoring a threshold to either convict or acquit Vice President Duterte.
Instead, it must establish a principled, transparent precedent through solid constitutional reasoning—one that will govern the nation long after this specific trial concludes.
