MANILA, Philippines — Senator-judge Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Wednesday raised the possibility that unforeseen circumstances could require the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to reconsider how it applies the constitutional voting threshold in deciding an impeachment case.
During the consultation with amici curiae, Lacson posed a hypothetical scenario in which nine of the 24 senators would be unable to return to the country because of a protracted war abroad, leaving only 15 senators available to participate in the impeachment proceedings.
He asked whether the Senate could still proceed with the trial and whether the 16-vote threshold for conviction would remain “immovable” despite the circumstances.
In response, retired Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna explained that with only 15 senators available, a conviction could not be reached based on the requirement of two-thirds of all Senate members.
He said the resulting judgment would effectively be an acquittal because of the failure to obtain the constitutionally required 16 votes, rather than because a majority of the participating senators voted to acquit.
But Lacson pointed to circumstances that the framers of the 1987 Constitution may not have anticipated circumstances such as senators being in hiding, detained without bail, or abroad and unable to return.
He said these developments could demonstrate why the application of the constitutional threshold could not necessarily be treated as “immovable” as circumstances evolve.
Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban agreed with this, saying that fairness could still be achieved through the senators who are present.
“Fairness can be rendered by two-thirds of those present. It’s not necessary that 16 should vote in favor, because it’s impossible to get 16. Fairness cannot be denied to a majority simply because of circumstances beyond the control of our people," Panganiban said.
"Our people still deserve to be given justice because the 15 present can still act and render justice, and be able to discipline whoever is to be disciplined. I believe that senators have been empowered by our Constitution to act, and our Constitution trusts their judgment,” he added.
Lacson also asked Panganiban if inviting the amici curiae would help shield the impeachment court from accusations of grave abuse of discretion - a basis for questioning the impeachment court's actions before the Supreme Court - later on.
"I will partly answer my question - we practiced due diligence. We took time to listen to eminent people like you," he said.
Panganiban agreed, saying this was "a wise, prudent move" by the impeachment court, adding that "your questions are piercing, intelligent, enlightening, and edifying."
