MORE than 32 million Filipinos elected Sara Duterte to the vice presidency in 2022. Removing an elected vice president demands a process that the public can trust. No one is convicted in an impeachment trial without a two-thirds vote of all the members of the Senate. That bar protects the accused, and it protects the voters.
On July 6, the presiding officer of the Senate impeachment court ruled that conviction would take 16 votes. The court overruled him on Sept. 23, voting 13-1, while six minority senators stayed out of the chamber, Philstar reported. Senators unable to take part would drop out of the count. By that day’s computation, 20 senators counted, so 14 votes would convict. Not a word of the Constitution changed.
Four senators fell out of the count. One is sought under an International Criminal Court warrant, another is abroad on medical leave and two are detained on plunder charges. None has lost a seat. The people who elected them still have a senator, yet for this verdict that senator no longer counts.
The Constitution presumes the two detained senators innocent. Last July, the Sandiganbayan refused one of them leave to attend the trial, the Inquirer reported. Participation at judgment deserves separate consideration from permission to attend every hearing. Retired Associate Supreme Court Justice Adolfo Azcuna, who helped draft the Constitution, told the court that senators who miss hearings can still vote from the record, and that “all” means the full 24, the Philippine News Agency reported. The Sandiganbayan and the impeachment court should find a lawful way to let both vote at judgment.
Three retired chief justices said the count could move. In his lone dissent, the impeachment court’s presiding officer, Sen. Francis Escudero, found no basis in the constitutional text for another reading, Manila Bulletin reported. He said the ruling would not bind future impeachment courts, GMA News reported.
On Sept. 30, the Supreme Court dismissed three petitions against the ruling for lack of standing and prematurity. Impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol called the proceedings “constitutionally bulletproof.” Dismissal on those procedural grounds did not decide whether the count is constitutional. The Constitution gives the courts the duty to check any branch that gravely abuses its discretion. When a Senate court rereads a constitutional phrase in the middle of a trial, the alarm should ring at the Supreme Court. So far, the high court has answered only on procedure. The disputed computation remains in place. A conviction would remove the vice president, and the president could nominate her replacement. Any later ruling could leave the country living with a verdict reached under a count still in dispute.
I have sat on a bids and awards committee. Every requirement a bidder must meet is printed before a single envelope is opened. A bids committee that moved the passing mark after the bids were in would struggle to answer the protest, and the Senate has moved its count in the middle of a trial. Impeachment has its own rules, but public trust in it rests on the same habit: Fix the standard before judging anyone.
This would matter just as much with anyone else on trial. The impeachment court should give written reasons, supported by evidence, for every exclusion and hear both sides. After this trial, the Senate should adopt a standing rule on the count, grounded in a constitutional interpretation it can defend, before the next accused walks in. Thirty-two million voters, and the millions who voted against her, are owed a verdict they can believe. “Dapat malinaw ang bilang bago bumoto sa hatol.”
Author’s note on sources: Sources are identified in the text. The discussion of the ruling’s institutional consequences reflects the author’s analysis. Procedural developments are distinguished from decisions on the constitutional merits. Research reflects reports available through Oct. 3, 2026.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are intended to encourage public discussion on governance and national issues. They do not represent any official position of the institutions the author may be affiliated with.
Paul Chua, PhD, is an advocate of continuous learning. He finished “Essentials of Policy Development” at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore; “Strategic Management of Regulatory and Enforcement Agencies” at the Harvard Kennedy School; and “Leadership and Management for Integrity” at the Central European University.
