The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court handling the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, must come up with an official ruling on the required voting threshold for conviction, although the Constitution is clear that two-thirds of all 24 senators, or 16 votes, is needed.
Lawyer Joel Arzaga, managing partner of Arzaga and Associates Law Office, said the senator-judges cannot simply leave the issue to the courts if they are called upon to determine the number of votes needed for conviction.
“If the Senate sitting as an impeachment court is called to make a ruling as to the number of votes required to secure a conviction, they have to act. They can’t just wait for the courts,” Arzaga said in an interview with Bilyonaryo News Channel’s At The Forefront hosted by Atty. Karen Jimeno.
“They have to make a decision, and their decision has to be in accordance with the Constitution,” he added.
Arzaga said the Constitution is “clear and unambiguous” in requiring two-thirds of all members of the Senate, which currently has 24 members.
“For me, it’s quite simple. The Constitution is clear and unambiguous in what it provides, that it should be two-thirds of all members,” he said.
Applying the principle of statutory construction, Arzaga said plain and ordinary words in the Constitution should be given their ordinary meaning.
“We know the principle in statutory construction and interpretation of the Constitution, that when the words of the Constitution are plain and ordinary, we simply have to apply what the Constitution proposes,” he said.
Asked whether this means the threshold should be 16 votes, Arzaga answered, “Yes.”
He said the issue could reach the Supreme Court if the Senate votes to lower the threshold and some senator-judges or other parties challenge the decision.
“If that happens, then this becomes a justiciable issue, controversy, which falls squarely within the authority of the Supreme Court,” Arzaga said.
He added that the Vice President, senator-judges who disagree with the ruling, the defense, or even an ordinary person could bring the issue before the high court.
Arzaga said the SC would likely take cognizance of the issue because of its “transcendental importance” by noting that it concerns the country’s second-highest public official.#