HOUSE prosecutors clarified on Thursday that the Senate Impeachment Court’s recent interpretation of the voting threshold in Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s trial will only apply to the current case and will not automatically serve as a binding rule for future impeachment proceedings.
House prosecutor and Party-list Rep. Jose Manuel Diokno of Akbayan explained that the court’s use of the term pro hac vice, that means ‘for this particular occasion,’ was intended to emphasize that the ruling was limited to the unique circumstances surrounding the present trial.
‘I think the usual use of pro hac vice is simply to emphasize that this applies only to this particular case and cannot be used in future impeachment proceedings,’ Diokno said.
He explained that impeachment proceedings differ from regular court cases because decisions issued by the Supreme Court may become judicial precedents that guide future similar cases. This principle is known as stare decisis, where courts generally follow legal principles established in previous decisions.
‘The difference is that in an Impeachment Court, we have what we call judicial precedent, where a decision made by the Supreme Court may be applied in other similar cases in the future,’ Diokno explained.
However, Diokno stressed that rulings made by an impeachment court do not operate in the same manner as judicial precedents.
‘But it cannot be compared to judicial precedent or the principle of stare decisis,’ Diokno emphasized.
He said every future Senate sitting as an impeachment court will have its own membership and constitutional authority to interpret procedural matters based on the circumstances of each case. A different Senate composition may, therefore, arrive at a different interpretation of the constitutional voting requirement.
The ruling resolved the dispute over the voting threshold in Duterte’s trial but did not permanently establish a fixed formula that would govern all future impeachment proceedings.
Meanwhile, impeachment trial spokesperson Ace Barbers emphasized that the threshold decision should not be interpreted as an indication of how senator-judges will vote on the actual impeachment charges.
‘But we believe that it is not an indication of the possible results of the vote they will make once all four articles have already been presented by the prosecution,’ Barbers said.
Barbers explained that the Impeachment Court’s decision focused only on a procedural matter involving the computation of the required votes for conviction. It did not involve an evaluation of the evidence or the merits of the four Articles of Impeachment filed against Duterte.
‘We do not want to preempt whatever decision they will make,’ Barbers said.
The prosecution has already presented evidence related to Article I, involving allegations concerning confidential funds, and Article IV, involving alleged grave threats. Proceedings on Article II, which concerns alleged unexplained wealth, are still ongoing, while Article III, involving alleged bribery, has yet to be presented.
Trial spokesperson Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia-ur Rahman Alonto Adiong explained that the revised voting threshold was created in response to the unusual circumstances affecting the current Senate membership and was not intended to become a universal standard for future impeachment cases.
‘The main point is that what is happening now is very extraordinary because it affects the membership of the Senate,’ Alonto Adiong explained.
The dispute emerged because some senators may be unable to fully participate in the proceedings due to circumstances such as detention, absence, medical conditions, or other limitations. While the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of all Senate members for conviction, it does not provide a specific numerical figure.
‘But the practical application of this two-thirds fraction, in order to arrive at a final number for the Senate to make its decision, was what was being discussed,’ Alonto Adiong said.
He noted that the commonly recognized figure of 16 votes assumes a complete 24-member Senate that is fully capable of performing its constitutional duties during the final judgement.
‘The expectation of that number 24 is based on the assumption that there would be no consequences or special circumstances occurring, aside from situations such as death or vacancy,’ Alonto Adiong noted.