MANILA, Philippines — A lawyer has filed a second petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Senate sitting as an impeachment court over its new ruling on the number of votes needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte.
Lawyer Ernesto Francisco filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition asking the high court to declare the Sept. 23, 2026 ruling unconstitutional and to stop its implementation through a status quo ante order.
The petition came a day after former executive secretary Vic Rodriguez filed a similar petition.
Francisco focused on the constitutional requirement that an impeachable official could not be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate.
He argued that because the Senate is composed of 24 members, the constitutional threshold is 16 votes.
“The 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly provides that in order for an impeachable official to be convicted by the public respondent Senate Impeachment Court, there must be a concurrence of ‘two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate,’” the petition said.
It computed the requirement at 16 votes.
The Senate impeachment court, however, adopted a new controlling interpretation under which “all members of the Senate” would refer to senators who remain legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings at the time of the vote.
Under the ruling, senators who are detained or suspended, whose whereabouts are unknown, suffering from physical or medical incapacity, beyond the coercive processes of the Senate, or similarly situated may be excluded from the computation.
The Senate also ruled that the new interpretation would apply only to the present impeachment proceedings and would not constitute a binding precedent for future impeachment cases.
It further said that where computation of the two-thirds threshold results in a fraction, the required number of votes would be rounded up to the next whole number.
Francisco claimed the Senate impeachment court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it adopted the new interpretation and effectively lowered the constitutional threshold for conviction.
He specifically assailed the participation of 13 senator-judges in adopting the new interpretation, naming them in the petition.
Francisco asked the high court to intervene before the new interpretation is applied to determine whether Duterte will be convicted or acquitted. He said waiting until after the impeachment court reaches a verdict could allow what he considers a potentially unconstitutional interpretation to run its full course.
He also invoked his status as a citizen, taxpayer and member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, arguing that he had standing to raise the constitutional question.
He emphasized that his petition was not directed at the merits of Duterte’s impeachment case but at what he described as the need for the Senate impeachment court to observe constitutional limits in exercising its powers.
Francisco has previously challenged impeachment proceedings before the high court. In 2003, he was among those who questioned the second impeachment complaint against then-Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.; which became a leading ruling on judicial review of impeachment proceedings.
The latest petition names the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, Senate Presiding Officer Francis Joseph Escudero, the House of Representatives, House prosecution panel head Rep. Gerville Reyes-Luistro, and Duterte as respondents.
