The Supreme Court has dismissed three separate petitions challenging the Senate Impeachment Court’s interpretation of the two-thirds vote required to convict in an impeachment case due to procedural defects including lack of standing and prematurity.
The petitions sought to question the Senate tribunal’s Sept. 23 ruling that only senators who are legally and actually capable of participating in the impeachment proceedings should be counted in determining the two-thirds voting requirement for conviction.
The ruling involves the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte as the Senate is set to determine whether she should be convicted or acquitted.
The SC En Banc acted on the petitions during its session on Sept. 30 on separately filed petitions by former Executive Secretary Victor D. Rodriguez, Berteni Cataluña Causing and lawyer Ernesto B. Francisco Jr.
The SC dismissed all three petitions on procedural grounds.
The petitioners had asked the SC to intervene and nullify or restrain the implementation of the Senate tribunal’s interpretation by arguing that the Constitution requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all 24 members of the Senate to convict an impeached official.
Under their interpretation, 16 votes would be required for conviction, regardless of whether some incumbent senators are detained, on medical leave, absent or otherwise unable to participate in the impeachment proceedings.
The Senate Impeachment Court, however, ruled on Sept. 23 that the phrase “all the Members of the Senate” under Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Constitution refers only to senators who are legally and factually capable of taking part in the proceedings at the time of the vote.
The tribunal adopted the interpretation in a 13-1 vote with six senator-judges abstaining.
Rodriguez was among those who went to the SC to challenge the Senate tribunal’s interpretation.
In his petition for certiorari and prohibition, Rodriguez argued that the Senate effectively created a new constitutional voting threshold by interpreting “all the Members of the Senate” to mean only those capable of participating in the proceedings.
He maintained that the Constitution does not provide any exception for senators who are absent, detained, medically unable to attend or otherwise incapable of participating.
Rodriguez argued that if the Senate is constitutionally composed of 24 members, the two-thirds requirement remains at 16 votes.
He also claimed that the Senate tribunal’s Sept. 23 ruling effectively amended the Constitution without following the amendment process provided under Article XVII.
“The Constitution cannot be amended sub silentio. Neither can it be amended pro hac vice,” Rodriguez’s petition stated.
He asked the SC to nullify the Senate tribunal’s ruling and stop it from conducting or implementing any conviction vote based on the disputed interpretation.
Rodriguez stressed that he was not asking the SC to determine Duterte’s guilt or innocence, but only to settle the constitutional question involving the number of votes required for conviction.
On the other hand, Francisco Jr. also challenged the Senate tribunal’s ruling before the SC.
Francisco asked the SC to nullify the Sept. 23 interpretation and sought a status quo ante order that would essentially restore the situation before the Senate tribunal adopted the disputed voting threshold.
He said the issue should be resolved by the SC because it involves the interpretation of the Constitution.
“Nagsampa ako ng petition kung saan kinukwestiyon natin yung ginawa ng Senate impeachment court na kung saan ito yung nag-interpret ng Constitution o ating Saligang Batas,” Francisco said.
Francisco stressed that he was not representing any political party and that he filed the petition as a citizen concerned about the Senate’s interpretation of the Constitution.
“Hindi ako nagre-represent ng kung sino mang partido. Sa katunayan, ang Bise Presidente ay isa sa mga respondents dito,” he said.
He warned that allowing public officials to interpret the Constitution according to their own view could create a dangerous precedent.
“Napakadelikado ng ganitong sitwasyon kung saan papayagan natin na ang mga senador o sino mang public official ay magkaroon ng kanyang sariling interpretasyon ng ating Saligang Batas,” Francisco said.
He also explained why he sought a status quo ante order instead of a temporary restraining order.
“Ang hinihiling ko ay hindi TRO, kundi isang status quo ante order,” he said.
Francisco said the order would prevent the parties from acting on the disputed interpretation while the constitutional issue was being resolved.
He said he deliberately did not seek a TRO because he believed it would be improper to ask the SC to restrain a co-equal branch of government.
Causing separately questioned the Senate tribunal’s interpretation and sought to stop any final vote on Duterte’s impeachment while his petition was pending.
Causing argued that senators who remain in office should still be counted in determining the two-thirds requirement even if they are in hiding, detained, medically unable to attend or otherwise absent.
He asked the SC to issue a status quo ante order and/or temporary restraining order and to compel Senators Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada Jr., Rodante Marcoleta and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa to participate in the impeachment proceedings.
The three petitioners essentially argued that the Senate cannot change the constitutional denominator for an impeachment conviction through its own interpretation.
With the petitions dismissed, the Senate Impeachment Court’s interpretation of the two-thirds voting requirement remains unchallenged on the merits in these cases as the impeachment proceedings against Duterte move forward.#