A group of law deans and lawyers backed the Senate Impeachment Court’s decision to exclude detained, suspended, incapacitated, or in hiding members from being counted in determining the base for the two-thirds vote required to convict in Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial.
In a joint statement, they said the Impeachment Court’s interpretation is in line with the need for judges to make an informed assessment and render a fair and impartial judgment.
They also said the interpretation, by itself, does not favor either side in the proceedings.
The statement was backed by Mario Zaldy Docena, retired judge and Dean of the Emilio Aguinaldo College Institute of Law and Justice; Pearlito Campanilla, Dean of the Unibersidad De Manila College of Law; lawyer Leo Katindig of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Law; lawyer Jeffrey Aguilar of the University of Caloocan; and lawyer and private practitioner Anne Berja.
They said that if the base for the two-thirds vote only counts senator-judges who are legally and factually capable of participating when judgment is rendered, the number of votes to convict goes down, but so does the number of votes to acquit.
“The change in the method of computation does not, in itself, give either side an advantage,” they said.
Aguilar, in the group’s press conference, noted that there have been comments claiming that the new interpretation of the two-thirds vote is meant to make it easier to convict Duterte, but he said that is not the case.
“The Vice President did not become a victim of this new interpretation because kung sasabihin man natin na yung required number of votes to convict was reduced from 16 to 14, it’s the same case. The number of votes required to secure an acquittal was reduced also from nine to seven,” Aguilar said.
He also said that those who want to acquit Duterte do not even need to vote for her acquittal, effectively making it easier not to convict her.
“Mag-abstain lang sila, effectively that is a vote towards acquittal,” he said.
In backing the new Senate interpretation, Docena said the Constitution is a living document and is meant to embody the Filipinos’ ideals and aspirations
“Ano ba ang aspirations ng mamamayan? Yung tuloy-tuloy na mayroong mga abusadong tao, na may gumagawa ng corruption and all?” he said.
He also said the Constitution should be interpreted holistically, and its provisions should not be read in a vacuum.
“Ano ba ang sinasabi ng Constitution? Accountability,” he said.
He also said the new Senate rule is not tantamount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. The vote to convict has always been two-thirds; it is only the interpretation of the basis of the two-thirds vote that was changed.
Campanilla said that for him, the intent of the framers of the Constitution is clear, that only those who participated in the trial can render judgment.
He said the Constitution is specific that the Senate would be the one to try impeachment cases.
This means being present, because otherwise, their capacity to make a decision would be diminished, he said.
He said trial means hearing both parties, evaluating and examining the witnesses, and determining their credibility.
“The statements of the witnesses are very critical in the decision making. So kung hindi mo napakinggan iyan, I would say, with due deference sa senator-judges na hindi nakaka-attend, they would not be qualified enough,” he said.
Relying on the transcript is not enough, he stressed, underscoring the importance of personally observing the witnesses’ demeanor.