MANILA — Are 16 votes needed for a conviction in an impeachment trial?
For the very first time, the Senate impeachment court will tackle the question on how many votes are needed to secure a conviction or acquittal in an impeachment trial.
Retired Chief Justices Artemio Panganiban and Reynato Puno and retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna will appear as amici curiae, or friends of the court, on Wednesday, September 16, to give their views on the voting threshold issue amid the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. will also serve as an amicus curiae but will not personally appear before the court.
The four former magistrates are serving as independent advisers to the impeachment court and do not represent either the House prosecution or Duterte’s defense.
According to the House of Representatives website, Azcuna and Davide were members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, giving them firsthand familiarity with the framing of its provisions.
Davide also presided over the Senate impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada in 2000 and 2001.
Azcuna served as vice chair of the Constitutional Commission committee on accountability of public officers, making his participation particularly relevant to the interpretation of the impeachment provisions now before the Senate court.
According to Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution, no person may be convicted in an impeachment trial without the concurrence of “two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
Two-thirds of the 24-man Senate translates to 16 votes. However, two senators - Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta - were jailed on plunder charges before the trial while a third senator, Bato Dela Rosa, has been in hiding since November due to an International Criminal Court warrant for his arrest.
Azcuna earlier noted the Senate has "the sole power to try and decide the impeachment case" but that the case may be brought before the Supreme Court in case of grave abuse of discretion.
"Supposing the threshold should be 16, but the vote is only 15, but the Senate tribunal enters a judgment of conviction saying that the threshold has been met, then that can be questioned as a grave abuse of discretion, in my view," he said.
He added he believes a suspended senator should be included in the count.
"What the Supreme Court said in one case is that someone suspended cannot hold public office. What it means is he cannot exercise the public office, but the position is still occupied by him or her," he said.
The prosecution and defense are scheduled to present their respective arguments on the threshold issue on Sept. 23, after which the senator-judges are expected to vote on the issue.