Sen. Panfilo Lacson on Sunday called for the early resolution of questions surrounding the voting threshold required to convict Vice President Sara Duterte in her impeachment trial, warning that a post-verdict challenge before the Supreme Court could create an “awkward” situation.
In an interview with radio dzBB, Lacson said differing legal opinions have emerged since Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero ruled that 16 votes would be required to convict Duterte.
The dispute centers on whether the Constitution’s two-thirds requirement should be based on all 24 Senate members or only on the number of senators who actually participated in the trial.
Lacson said Escudero’s ruling has created a “justiciable” issue or controversy that could be challenged before the Supreme Court. No senator-judge objected when the ruling was made on the first day of the trial.
“So, that could trigger a petition, if at all, kung may gustong mag-petition sa Korte Suprema para kuwestyunin yung ruling ng impeachment court… Kasi may ibang view, kasi narinig ko si dating IBP President Cayosa sabi niya hindi automatic na 16 kasi kapag all senators, ang interpretation ng all senators na puwedeng mag-participate, na magko-compel mag-participate. So iba’t ibang views,” he said.
Lacson said former Senate President Franklin Drilon shared the same opinion. However, others maintain that 16 votes should be required regardless of how many senators participate in the proceedings—a position Lacson himself supports.
“So, mainam na this early ma-resolve na yung isyu ng threshold, yung issue ng two-thirds at meron nang mag-bring up nito sa Korte Suprema para mas maaga pa lang, habang nagta trial at hindi pa kami nagde desisyon ng conviction or acquittal based on the numbers…Ang ruling namin 16, pero kung sabihin ng Korte Suprema na based on the petition , ‘ay hindi, ang ruling niyo will be based on whatever number na present na nag-participate sa impeachmen trial’. So, at least guided kami,” he said.
Asked whether he would recommend that the prosecution panel bring the matter before the Supreme Court, Lacson said it would be improper for senator-judges to interfere because the impeachment court had already issued its ruling.
“Ayaw namin maki-alam diyan. Alam naman nila ang dapat nilang gawin. Hindi kami para dapat mag-recommend na ‘hoy kuwestyunin niyo yan’, hindi maganda para sa amin. Basta nagkaroon kami ng ruling, yan ang ruling namin. As a matter of fact, I support the 16 to constitute the two-thirds of the senators. Yan ang akin din, base sa pagtatanong sa mga abogado na nakaka-usap ko, eh ganon din pag sinabing all members, whether nag-participate or not, eh 16 pa rin yung two-thirds,” he said.
Lacson described 16 as the “absolute number,” saying the constitutional provision was based on the assumption that all 24 senators could participate in an impeachment trial.
He said the framers of the Constitution may not have anticipated a situation in which senators could not participate because they were detained or in hiding, citing Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, who are detained, and Sen. Ronald dela Rosa, who is in hiding.
Lacson again raised a hypothetical scenario in which nine senators were detained, leaving only 15 members able to participate in the trial.
“Eh, magta-trial pa ba kami? Eh mere formality na lang yung acquittal kasi di makakaboto yung siyam, at 15 lang ang magta-trial. Eh bakit pa tayo magta-trial, sigurado naman acquittal ang verdict kasi wala nga yung siyam. Kaya dapat talaga ma-resolve ito,” he added.
Lacson warned that the situation could become “messy” if the impeachment court rendered a verdict that the Supreme Court later overturned on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.