SENATORS Robinhood Padilla and Bong Go have asked the Supreme Court to stop the Senate impeachment court from using a reduced 14-vote threshold to convict Vice President Sara Duterte, arguing that the Constitution requires the concurrence of at least 16 of the Senate’s 24 members.
In a 106-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, Padilla and Go, together with PDP-Laban and several lawyers and party members, challenged the impeachment court’s Sept. 23 ruling allowing senators who are absent from the proceedings to be excluded from the computation of the two-thirds requirement.
The petitioners, both Duterte supporters, said the ruling effectively lowered the constitutional threshold from 16 to 14 votes because the Senate currently has 24 sitting members, while four were excluded from the denominator under the new formula.
They argued that Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution is explicit: “No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.” The petitioners said “all the members” means the full membership of the Senate — not merely those who are present, participating or deemed capable of voting when the verdict is taken.
They said no Senate seat has been permanently vacated through death, resignation, expulsion, forfeiture or final judgment, meaning all 24 senators remain members of the chamber.
The petitioners also attacked the timing of the Senate ruling, noting that the impeachment court had initially ruled on July 6 that 16 votes were required for conviction and proceeded with the trial for more than two months under that standard.
The challenge to the 16-vote requirement was raised only on Sept. 8 and ultimately approved by the impeachment court on Sept. 23, or 64 days after the original ruling, the petition said.
Padilla and Go argued that the Senate cannot effectively amend a constitutional requirement through an ordinary majority vote or an interlocutory ruling during an impeachment trial.
They cited Supreme Court precedents, including Bayan v. Zamora and Estrella v. Commission on Elections, to support their position that constitutional voting requirements referring to “all the members” are based on the full membership of the body.
The petitioners also rejected reliance on Avelino v. Cuenco, which the impeachment court cited in adopting the variable-denominator approach. They argued that Avelino involved a quorum question — not the constitutionally mandated supermajority required to convict in an impeachment case.
“A quorum” is intended to allow a legislative body to function, the petition said, while a supermajority requirement for impeachment is designed to make removal of a nationally elected official deliberately difficult.
The petitioners warned that allowing the denominator to change depending on which senators are detained, suspended, absent, medically incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate could create opportunities to manipulate the number of votes needed for conviction.
They argued that the Constitution’s safeguards would be undermined if the body exercising the power to remove an elected official could itself determine who should be counted in calculating the votes required for removal.
The petitioners therefore asked the Supreme Court to immediately issue a status quo ante order or temporary restraining order preventing the Senate from implementing the Sept. 23 ruling.
They want the Senate to refrain from excluding any sitting senator from the constitutional count and to require at least 16 votes for any conviction of Duterte.
They further asked the high court to annul the Sept. 23 ruling and permanently prohibit the impeachment court from using a variable denominator in Duterte’s trial.
The petition also asks the Supreme Court to declare null and void any conviction of Duterte supported by fewer than 16 votes while all 24 senators remain in office.
The Supreme Court has dismissed previous petitions to declare the fixed 16-vote threshold mandatory. On Sept. 30, it dismissed the petitions due to lack of standing and prematurity without ruling on the merits of the Senate’s formula, leaving the Senate impeachment court’s internal rules and interpretation standing for the ongoing proceedings.
