Senators submit justification for revised voting threshold in Duterte impeachment trial

MANILA — Five senators who approved a revised voting base needed for a conviction in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte submitted written explanations for their stance. 

Senators on Wednesday voted 13-1, with six minority senators abstaining, that the constitutionally required two-thirds guilty verdict by “all members of the Senate” refers only to those “capable of participating”.

None of the 13 spoke up in the trial but written explanations were spread into the record.

Here is what they said. 

“Kung ang isang Senador ay hindi nakilahok sa paglilitis, hindi niya maisusuri ang ebidensiya. Hindi siya makakapagtanong sa mga testigo, at hindi magiging buo ang kanyang pag-unawa sa lahat ng elemento ng kaso kumpara sa mga Senador na naroon mismo sa paglilitis,” Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said.

“A Senator who cannot participate in the trial and cannot cast a vote should not be included in determining that number. This is not fair. This is not fair to the constitutional institution of impeachment. This is not fair to the senator-judges who dutifully performed their duties. This is not fair to the Filipino people who expect a fair judgement from the impeachment court composed of senator-judges who genuinely participated in the trial.” 

“The impeachment process must be fair not only to the Respondent, but also to the People who seek accountability from the highest officials of the land.”

“Yung ‘all the members kasi’ may mga understood na exception- tulad ng dapat buhay, pero hindi na nilagay kasi katawa-tawa mangyayari. Example-Dapat pa ilagay ‘all the members of the Senate who are alive?’ Kasi nakalagay there shall be twenty-four (24) Senators. Common sense na dapat buhay. Kung patay, bababa ang total di ba. Eh may mga gray areas tulad ng suspended from office—buhay pero bawal sumali. Paano na? So, we need interpretation. Thus, a rigid interpretation of the Constitution will result to absurdity and constitutional paralysis. As Chief Justice Panganiban said, ‘A commonsensical interpretation of the constitution is warranted,’” Senate President Pro Tempore Vicente Sotto III said.

“A judge must render judgment. But before one can judge, he or she must have been in a position to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, consider the evidence, listen to counsels, and participate in the deliberative process,” Sen. Joel Villanueva said. 

“It will be unfair that respondent’s case is decided by a judge who was neither present nor had the opportunity to study their case thoroughly during the presentation of the evidence,” Sen. Raffy Tulfo said. 

“There are essential matters lost in translation when actual living witnesses are reduced to lines within the Transcript of Records. The effort of the senator judges to propound clarificatory questions and to personally examine the witnesses as to the truth of their statements cannot be equated to a mere reading of the transcript of these proceedings.”

“Of course there are those whose presence is prevented by

legal reasons, but for my other colleagues, our people deserve the courtesy of our presence. Ang mga kababayan nating pumapasok araw-araw — ulan o baha o heat wave; ang mga bata na pilit na nag-aaral sa school sa gitna ng mga threat, ang mga manggagawa na patuloy bumabangon at lumalaban; they show up. And so should we,” Sen. Risa Hontiveros said.

The senators said they also wanted to avoid verdicts arising from technicalities.

“A vote to acquit is a deliberate decision that must be based on the evidence presented during trial. The inability to vote is not a decision at all. But when a Senator who cannot vote is still included in the count, it increases the burden for conviction because the absent senator is automatically counted as a vote to acquit. How can the vote of an absent senator be considered as a vote for conviction or acquittal when the person was unable to participate at all?” Gatchalian said.

“Let us consider where a fixed requirement of sixteen votes for conviction can take us. If sixteen votes are always required, conviction becomes impossible when fewer than sixteen Senators

can participate and vote, regardless of the evidence. The outcome would be certain before the trial even begins,” he added.

“An impeachable official would be able to escape a judgment based on the evidence simply because the required number of votes had become impossible to reach,” he said.

Tulfo added: “We ensure that the final verdict—whether it be conviction or acquittal—is decided by the living conscience of this active Chamber, and not by the ghosts of empty desks. We owe the Filipino people a real verdict, not a mathematical technicality.” 

They also believe the ruling would preserve the impeachment process and insulate it from maneuverings and sabotage.

“This is another reason why only those Senators who are present, can participate, and vote should be counted in determining how many senators are included in the count. It preserves the two- thirds conviction requirement while protecting the constitutional process of impeachment against any attempt to render it inoperative by removing senator-judges from the equation,” Gatchalian said.

“The absence of a number of senators in an impeachment trial should not paralyze and render helpless the entire institution, and the Filipino people we represent. Our constitutional process for accountability of high officials should not be so easily derailed,” Hontiveros said.

Villanueva, for his part, noted the ruling benefits both sides.  

“Kung ibababa ang bilang ng mga boto batay sa mga Senador na qualified to participate and vote, pareho itong magbabago—hindi lamang para sa conviction, kundi pati sa acquittal. Pantay ang magiging epekto nito sa magkabilang panig,” he said.