Senators reconsider 16-vote conviction threshold in VP Sara Duterte impeachment trial

The prolonged absence of four senator-judges has prompted members of the Senate to revisit whether the 16-vote requirement to convict Vice President Sara Duterte should be lowered.

Senate Majority Leader Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri revealed Thursday that the issue was raised during a private Senate caucus a day earlier, though no decision has been made to alter the current rule.

“There are some senators who have questioned the threshold, and it may come up sooner or later,” Zubiri said in a press conference. “There are those who are detained, and one is at large. So I think that’s the issue now.”

The four absent members are Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, who are currently detained on plunder charges; Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, who remains at large following an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court; and Loren Legarda, who is on medical leave abroad.

Zubiri noted that the chamber still had a full slate of 24 members in July when Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero—acting as presiding officer of the impeachment court—ruled that a two-thirds majority of 16 votes would be required for conviction.

“That issue has to be answered soon enough by the presiding officer,” Zubiri added.

Escudero established the rule on July 6, the opening day of the trial, while laying down the constitutional and procedural guidelines governing the proceedings. At the time, he maintained that the Constitution explicitly defines the Senate as a 24-member body, making a two-thirds threshold non-negotiable.

“The Charter provides that the Senate shall be composed of 24 senators. Without a tinge of doubt, two-thirds of that figure—or not less than 16 members—is an unquestionable compliance with the requisite number of votes,” Escudero stated.

He emphasized that the gravity of the trial demanded strict constitutional adherence. “It behooves, therefore, all of us to observe the same fidelity to the Constitution in this trial, which affects not only the mere ratification of a treaty, but more so affects the substantial rights of the respondent, as well as the sovereign will of the people as expressed in the overwhelming mandate given to her.”

At the time of the ruling, Escudero noted that any senator who disagreed could seek relief from the Supreme Court. While no one challenged his decision at the start of the trial, the issue has resurfaced as legal and medical issues have sidelined a sixth of the Senate's voting membership.

Zubiri stated that a public debate in plenary would be the most appropriate way to settle the matter, while acknowledging that any modification to the threshold would almost certainly face a challenge before the Supreme Court.

-Paraluman News