VP Duterte's defense team questions need to change Constitutional rule on impeachment voting

Defense counsel for Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday pressed the Senate Impeachment Court to uphold the fixed 16-vote requirement for conviction, contending that the court’s initial ruling on the voting threshold had already taken effect and could no longer be arbitrarily revisited. Appearing on Day 29 of the trial, defense lawyer Michael Poa argued that no supervening event had occurred since the opening of the proceedings to justify altering the baseline established on Day 1 by Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero. “Last July 6, 2026, on the very first day of trial, the presiding officer ruled that the voting threshold to convict is 16. At that time, no senator-judge objected. No senator-judge sought reconsideration. No senator-judge appealed. Your Honors, that was over two months ago. There is no supervening event. Our point is, nothing changed between July 6 and today,” Poa told the chamber.

Addressing the procedural aspects, Poa noted that the absence of an explicit deadline under the impeachment rules did not grant the court leeway to resurrect resolved matters at any stage.

“Reading the rules on impeachment, under Rule 6, there is no timeframe within which a motion for reconsideration can be considered,” Poa added. “Naturally, because that should have been brought up at the earliest opportunity. But that did not happen.”Poa warned that changing the numerical requirement while the trial was underway would directly infringe upon Vice President Duterte’s constitutional right to due process.

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison later stated that all subsequent defense participation would be made ad cautelam (with caution) as they prepare to exhaust legal remedies, including potential elevation to the Supreme Court.

The defense’s stance came as the House prosecution panel reiterated its call for the court to base the two-thirds conviction baseline strictly on senators who are active, present, and capable of discharging their judicial duties.

Prosecutor and Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno argued that counting absent or incapacitated senators in the denominator distorts the constitutional mechanism.

“A situation where a senator is unable to take the oath or is legally prevented from performing a senator’s job... each of them cannot hear the evidence, deliberate, and vote. Their inability to participate is beyond dispute. And yet, if the denominator is fixed at 24, conviction would always require 16 votes. That would be absurd,” Diokno contended.

The jurisdictional dispute was reignited after Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo formally appealed the July 6 ruling, highlighting the reality that four of the 24 senator-judges are currently unable to take part in the trial: Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta remain in detention over pending charges related to alleged flood control project controversies and undeclared campaign contributions, respectively.

Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa has been absent amid a standing arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in connection with the previous administration’s anti-drug campaign.

Senator Loren Legarda remains on extended medical leave abroad undergoing treatment for a serious pulmonary illness.

The Court Rules

In a historic reversal on Wednesday afternoon, the Senate Impeachment Court voted 13–1 to grant Tulfo’s appeal, setting aside the rigid 16-vote requirement.

Under the newly adopted policy—declared pro hac vice (applicable to this trial only)—the constitutional mandate requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of “all the Members of the Senate” will be computed strictly based on senator-judges who are legally and factually capable of participating at the time the final verdict is cast.

The new formula mandates the exclusion of senators who fall into five specific categories:

• Detained, suspended, or legally restrained from exercising their official functions.

  
  

• Sought by law enforcement authorities whose whereabouts are unknown.

  
  

• Suffering from physical or medical incapacity.

  
  

• Beyond the coercive processes of the Senate.

  
  

• Other similarly situated conditions supported by competent evidence.

The court further clarified that any fractional result when calculating the two-thirds threshold will automatically be rounded up to the next whole number to safeguard the two-thirds minimum standard.

Thirteen senator-judges voted in favor of overturning the original threshold: Vicente Sotto III, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Sherwin Gatchalian, Bam Aquino, JV Ejercito, Risa Hontiveros, Lito Lapid, Panfilo Lacson, Francis Pangilinan, Mark Villar, Raffy Tulfo, Erwin Tulfo, and Joel Villanueva.

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero cast the sole negative vote, maintaining his original legal interpretation while affirming he would execute the majority's verdict. Six senator-judges abstained from taking part in the vote: Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Christopher “Bong” Go, Imee Marcos, Camille Villar, and Robinhood Padilla.

“The presiding officer, after all, is not the court,” Escudero said following the vote. “He is merely the custodian of the process, not the proprietor of its outcome. This is the essence of democracy—that disagreement be preserved without obstruction and that lawful results be obeyed without resentment.”

-Paraluman News