MANILA, Philippines — Challenges before the Supreme Court against the Senate impeachment court’s new voting rule will test how the Constitution’s accountability mechanism applies to an impeachment trial under unprecedented circumstances, trial spokesperson and Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said Saturday.
Adiong made the statement during the Saturday News Forum in Quezon City as the Supreme Court considers petitions seeking to block the Senate impeachment court from implementing its decision to abandon a fixed 16-vote threshold for convicting Vice President Sara Duterte.
The impeachment court voted 13-1, with six senator-judges not participating, to apply the Constitution’s two-thirds requirement to senators who remain legally and factually capable of participating when the court renders its judgment.
Adiong said the situation presents a new constitutional question because some sitting senators may lack the legal or factual capacity to participate in the trial.
“This is the first time, actually, that an impeachment trial happens when there are few sitting senators who are legally incapable of attending an impeachment trial,” Adiong said.
He said the framers of the 1987 Constitution did not anticipate a situation in which senators could become legally incapable of participating in an impeachment trial.
Adiong also cited differing interpretations from former Supreme Court justices who appeared as amici curiae, or friends of the court, during proceedings before the impeachment court.
Retired Chief Justices Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno and Hilario Davide Jr. presented interpretations that could exclude senators who are legally or factually incapable of participating from the voting base.
Retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, however, argued that the calculation should continue to use the full 24-member Senate.
The dispute centers on the constitutional requirement for a conviction through the vote of “two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
Adiong also referred to the Supreme Court’s 1949 decision in Avelino v. Cuenco, which addressed the calculation of a quorum in the Senate.
He acknowledged that the case involved a legislative function rather than an impeachment conviction but said its principles have received attention in the current debate.
Adiong said those who challenge the impeachment court’s decision have the right to ask the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutional provision.
“Anybody can go to the Supreme Court because this is a free country,” Adiong said.
He also said the controversy could prove premature until the impeachment court actually votes on Duterte’s guilt or innocence.
“But I think the controversy, if you ask me, the controversy should begin when there is an actual voting when, for example, the Senate will reach its final verdict,” he said.
Adiong nevertheless acknowledged that petitioners can seek an earlier ruling from the Supreme Court.
“But again, that’s the prerogative,” he said. “And let’s see how the Supreme Court will respond.”
