MANILA, Philippines — Senator-judges may need more time to consider the voting threshold for conviction in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte before deciding on the issue, Sen. Panfilo "Ping" Lacson said.
Lacson said that while they were enlightened by the insights of three former Supreme Court justices who appeared before the Impeachment Court, they still have to consider the oral arguments of the prosecution and defense on the issue.
"I'd like to think we would be given more time to sleep on it, so we can dissect everything discussed during the oral arguments. It may not be enough to vote immediately after the oral arguments. But that is the schedule we agreed upon at least for now," Lacson said in an interview on DZMM radio on Saturday.
"I'd rather wait for the oral arguments on Wednesday because the prosecution and defense will share their ideas and arguments. It is better to listen to them to broaden the basis of our decision," he added.
On Sept. 23, the senator-judges are to hear the oral arguments of the prosecution and defense, then decide whether to retain or modify the ruling of Presiding Officer Francis Escudero that 16 votes are required for conviction.
When asked if senator-judges may appeal to the presiding officer to defer the voting, Lacson said it is possible.
"If some of us still need more time, a motion may be made to defer the voting to the following week," he said.
Lacson reiterated that he was enlightened by the insights shared last Wednesday by former Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s discussion of “textual vs. contextual” interpretation, retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban’s emphasis on “truth and fairness,” and retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna’s interpretation of the phrase “all means all” in determining the threshold.
Puno, Panganiban and Azcuna appeared before the impeachment court last Wednesday, while former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. sent his memorandum that was read during the proceedings.
Lacson said he also sought inputs from other legal luminaries, including another former chief justice who gave insights on a possible "automatic acquittal" if 16 votes cannot be obtained for conviction even if there are situations where nine senator-judges could not attend the impeachment trial.
He said the Impeachment Court's consultation with the "amici curiae (friends of the court)" should address claims that the impeachment court acted with grave abuse of discretion.
"I believe we exercised prudence and due diligence by consulting with legal eagles. You cannot downplay the importance of three former chief justices and one former senior associate justice," Lacson said.
"I would like to think that if anyone accuses us of grave abuse of discretion, our consultation with them would greatly weaken that argument," he added
