MANILA, Philippines — Senators Robin Padilla and Christopher Go have asked the Supreme Court (SC) 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, 2026 ruling allowing senators deemed “legally and factually capable of participating” to be excluded from the computation of the two-thirds requirement.
The petitioners 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 stressed that 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 could not effectively amend a constitutional requirement through an ordinary majority vote or an interlocutory ruling during an impeachment trial.
They cited 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.
