VP spokesperson: Altering the impeachment voting baseline undermines 1987 Constitution

Atty. Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr., spokesperson for Vice President Sara Duterte, opposed the move to lower the conviction threshold, warning that altering the voting baseline undermines the 1987 Constitution.

Panelo—son of former Presidential Spokesperson Atty. Salvador Panelo Sr.—issued the statement on Wednesday before the Senate decided on the exact voting formula needed to convict the Vice President.

“Pagbabago po ’yun ng Konstitusyon (That is a change to the Constitution),” Panelo stressed when asked by the media about moves to reconsider the required baseline. “The Constitution is clear that the two-thirds that is required is two-thirds of all members.”

He emphasized that detained senators Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, Rodante Marcoleta, and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, along with Sen. Loren Legarda, remain duly elected members of the upper chamber.

“Dapat all members of 24, which means 16,” Panelo argued.

The Constitutional Intent

Panelo noted that the framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately selected the phrase “two-thirds of all members” rather than restricting the count to senators present during the vote—a distinction previously highlighted by Sen. Pia Cayetano and defense attorney Michael Poa.

“For the Vice President, who was elected by 32 million people, you really need a supermajority so that it would not be a thin majority that is needed to remove a high official,” Panelo said.

Addressing procedural concerns, Panelo questioned why the Senate had not established provisions for electronic voting or remote attendance before taking up the voting threshold.

If the chamber truly sought fair participation for members unable to be physically present, he suggested, it should have first amended its rules to permit videoconferencing.

“Kung ang habol talaga nila is sagot doon sa tanong na dapat bang patas ba o makatarungan ba na makakaboto ang isang senador na wala sa Senado... e di sana gumawa muna sila ng hakbang para makaparticipate ’yung mga wala rito,” he added.

Panelo also raised the issue of whether the change in the conviction threshold was meant to ensure Duterte's removal ahead of the next presidential cycle.

He also dismissed claims that the absence of certain senators was part of a defense strategy to force an acquittal through a lack of quorum. “Hindi ito strategic absence to manipulate the vote," he said.

Future Charter Changes

Beyond the VP trial, Panelo warned that redefining "all members" sets a precarious legal precedent that could compromise future constitutional processes, such as a Constituent Assembly (requiring a three-fourths vote of all members) or a Constitutional Convention (requiring a two-thirds vote).

Referring to an earlier procedural vote on a motion raised by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, Panelo noted that only 13 senators voted to proceed with redefining the threshold—a figure he argued reveals the prosecution's inability to hit the original 16-vote mark.

Senate Overturns Prior Ruling

Despite the defense's objections, the Senate impeachment court officially overturned its July 6 ruling on Wednesday afternoon, abandoning the fixed 16-vote requirement.

Thirteen senator-judges voted in favor of the reversal:

• Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian

• Senator Vicente Sotto III

  
  

• Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri

  
  

• Senator Bam Aquino

  
  

• Senator JV Ejercito

  
  

• Senator Risa Hontiveros

  
  

• Senator Lito Lapid

  
  

• Senator Panfilo Lacson

  
  

• Senator Francis Pangilinan

  
  

• Senator Mark Villar

  
  

• Senator Raffy Tulfo

  
  

• Senator Erwin Tulfo

  
  

• Senator Joel Villanueva

Senator Francis "Chiz" Escudero voted against the motion, while six senator-judges abstained or did not participate: Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, Senator Pia Cayetano, Senator Christopher “Bong” Go, Senator Imee Marcos, Senator Camille Villar, and Senator Robin Padilla.

Under the newly adopted rule, the constitutional requirement of “two-thirds of all members” will strictly refer to senators who, at the time of the final vote, are both legally and factually capable of participating in trial proceedings. -Paraluman News