The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed three petitions seeking to invalidate the Senate impeachment court’s Sept. 23 decision to lower the number of votes needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte, clearing the way for the trial to proceed under the revised voting rule.
The high court, sitting en banc, junked the petitions separately filed by former Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez, constitutional lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr. and disbarred lawyer Berteni Causing on procedural grounds, including lack of standing and being premature.
The ruling was unanimous, with acting Chief Justice Marvic Leonen presiding, Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting told reporters.
The petitions challenged the Sept. 23 ruling which interpreted the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote of ‘all the members of the Senate’ to mean senators legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings when the judgment is made.
The impeachment court’s 13-1 vote effectively changed the denominator for determining the two-thirds threshold. If only 20 senator-judges are eligible to participate when judgment is rendered, 14 votes would be needed for conviction instead of 16.
Three senators have been unable to participate in the trial since it began on July 6: Ronald ‘Bato’ dela Rosa, who is in hiding while facing an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, and Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada, who are detained over separate nonbailable plunder charges. Loren Legarda, who is currently on extended medical leave, attended a few sessions before leaving the country on Aug. 2.
Six other senator-judges, all members of the minority, did not participate in the Sept. 23 vote.
The Sept. 23 ruling came after the impeachment court on Sept. 16 heard the views of four retired Supreme Court justices invited as amici curiae, or friends of the court, to guide the senator-judges on the matter.
Three of the four-retired Chief Justices Hilario Davide Jr., Artemio Panganiban and Reynato Puno-said the two-thirds requirement should not necessarily be fixed at 16 votes. Retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna maintained that the Constitution requires the full membership of the Senate to be used in computing the threshold.
Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Constitution provides that no person may be convicted in an impeachment case ‘without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.’
SC leaves ruling intact
Rodriguez argued that the Senate court had effectively rewritten the Constitution, while Causing said senators should still be counted even if they are detained, in hiding or medically unable to attend. For Francisco, the Constitution provides for a 24-member Senate, hence conviction requires at least 16 senator-judges.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of those arguments but dismissed the petitions because the petitioners lacked legal standing and the issue raised was premature.
Legal experts earlier questioned whether the petitions were ripe for judicial review since no judgment had yet been rendered by the impeachment court.
‘Let trial proceed’
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said the Supreme Court ruling meant that Duterte’s trial could proceed as scheduled.
He said the decision showed that the impeachment court acted ‘within its bounds and its constitutional allowance.’
‘It also goes to show that the Supreme Court respects the decision of the impeachment court,’ Gatchalian added.
Senator-judge JV Ejercito shared Gatchalian’s view, saying he believed the ruling showed that the high court was giving importance to the impeachment court.
Senator-judge Joel Villanueva said he saw no remaining stumbling block to the proceedings.
The ruling was also welcomed by Reginald Tongol, spokesperson for the impeachment court, saying the ‘prompt dismissal of the [petitions] on procedural grounds-specifically lack of standing and prematurity-effectively confirms that the interpretations and proceedings of the Senate impeachment court are constitutionally bulletproof.’
‘By junking these challenges, the highest court has drawn a definitive firewall around the independence of the Senate as an impeachment court, confirming that its proceedings cannot be held hostage by premature judicial meddling or collateral litigation,’ he added.
Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon, a member of the House prosecution panel, said: ‘We believe that the Senate impeachment court itself should be the one to decide this.’
Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, prosecution spokesperson, said the ruling allowed the trial to remain focused on the evidence.
‘The duty of the prosecution in an impeachment trial is clear: to present evidence, examine witnesses, and prove the allegations in the articles of impeachment so the impeachment court may determine whether the respondent remains fit to hold public office,’ Adiong said.
Defense keeps options open
The defense had placed on record Duterte’s reservations over the Sept. 23 ruling and said she would continue participating in the proceedings ad cautelam, while reserving all legal remedies available under the Constitution and law.
Defense counsel Michael Poa has maintained that any disagreement with the impeachment court should be raised through the proper legal process.
‘I’ve always maintained… respect with the court. If we have a disagreement with the decision of the court, I think the best way to do it is not through the media, not through gossip but through our petition if we have a petition,’ Poa said.
Poa also distanced himself from Vice President Duterte’s spokesperson Paolo Panelo’s characterization of the proceedings as ‘lokohan,’ saying he had not agreed with that description.
The defense had not indicated whether it would pursue another Supreme Court challenge after Wednesday’s dismissal. Rodriguez had also not responded to an Inquirer inquiry on whether he would seek reconsideration of the ruling.
The impeachment trial resumes on Thursday, Oct. 1, after the Senate court canceled Wednesday’s hearing for what it called a ‘strategic procedural pause.’
Gatchalian said both the prosecution and defense panels had requested the one-day break to prepare for 11 straight trial days from Oct. 1 to 15, except on weekends.
The marathon schedule gives the panels little time to prepare between hearings and could result in the court running out of witnesses before the end of a trial day, he said.
Tongol said the trial was ‘aggressively ahead of schedule’ and described Wednesday’s cancellation as a pause to clear the way for whole-day hearings.
Next prosecution witnesses
Ridon said the prosecution had witnesses lined up for Thursday and Friday, including Land Registration Authority officials, Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura and former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.
‘I think we will not be under delay, like what the Senate impeachment court spokesperson mentioned, in fact we are on a fast pace in terms of our witness presentation,’ he said.
The prosecution is still finalizing the sequence of witnesses, particularly whether Trillanes or Buenaventura should testify first.
Ridon said the panel was taking ‘under strict advisement’ the impeachment court’s suggestion that Buenaventura testify first to provide a baseline for Trillanes’ testimony on bank accounts.
The prosecution had initially planned to call Trillanes first because he would also discuss matters not taken up during the House justice committee hearings.
The testimonies of Trillanes and Buenaventura are expected to form a key part of the prosecution’s Article 2 case involving Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth and failure to declare assets in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
The AMLC chief testified before the House justice committee that covered and suspicious transactions involving Duterte and her relatives totaled P6.7 billion, including P4.4 billion in inflows and P1.5 billion in outflows. He also confirmed that 18 transactions randomly selected from Trillanes’ annexes matched AMLC records.
The Senate impeachment court is scheduled to hold whole-day proceedings on Oct. 1 and 2, Oct. 5 to 9, and Oct. 12 to 15 before taking a break to accommodate deliberations on the proposed 2027 national budget.