The House prosecution panel is channeling all its efforts into building an “airtight case” against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte rather than speculating on the votes of senator-judges, maintaining that its evidence must be strong enough to withstand any conviction threshold set by the impeachment court.
House prosecution counsel Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. affirmed that the panel’s strategy has remained steadfast, even as debate surfaces among senator-judges regarding whether to revisit the current 16-vote requirement needed to convict the Vice President.
“Consistent kami from the very start na we never engaged in vote counting,” Tolosa said. (We have been consistent from the very start that we never engaged in vote counting.)
Rather than relying on headcounts, Tolosa emphasized that the prosecution intends to present evidence robust enough to secure a conviction, regardless of how the constitutional two-thirds vote requirement is ultimately interpreted.
“Basta kami, ang focus namin diyan, again, as we’ve stated, is to establish an airtight case para kahit anong magiging interpretation niyan, we’ll meet it,” he added. (For our part, our focus, as we’ve stated, is to establish an airtight case so that whatever interpretation comes out, we’ll meet it.)
Under the 1987 Constitution, the concurrence of two-thirds of all Senate members is required to convict an impeached official. Senate President and Presiding Officer Francis Escudero previously interpreted this provision as requiring 16 votes within the 24-member chamber.
However, the threshold has re-emerged as a point of discussion, specifically regarding how senators who are unable to participate in the trial should be factored into the final tally.
Tolosa noted that the 16-vote rule remains the active benchmark unless the impeachment court formally decides to re-evaluate it, a decision he said the prosecution would fully respect.
“So, as it stands, two-thirds is 16, as ordered by the presiding officer,” Tolosa said. “Focus namin, tuloy-tuloy ’yung paggulong ng proseso, tuloy-tuloy na paglatag ng ebidensya.” (Our focus is to keep the process moving forward and to continuously lay out the evidence.)
Speaking in his personal capacity as a lawyer, Tolosa observed that procedural rulings of this nature are interlocutory and could legally be re-examined by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
“Procedurally, nagkaroon ho ng decision ng Senate. But personal opinion ko, that’s an interlocutory order na pwede naman nilang ma-revisit ’yan. Nasa kanila ho ’yun kung gagawin nila ’yon o hindi,” he said. (Procedurally, the Senate made a decision. But in my personal opinion, that’s an interlocutory order that they can revisit. It’s up to them if they will do that or not.)
Tolosa outlined two prevailing legal perspectives on the issue, one strictly enforcing the 16-vote threshold regardless of attendance and another adjusting the base number to exclude senators who have not taken their oaths as judges, have failed to participate or are otherwise indisposed.
He clarified, however, that the prosecution panel has yet to take a formal stance on the vote baseline debate.
“Hindi pa panahon para sabihin ng prosecution kung ano ’yung official stand namin on the matter,” Tolosa said. (It is not yet time for the prosecution to declare our official stand on the matter.)
Tolosa also noted that the question regarding the vote threshold could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, though he pointed out that the high tribunal can only step in if an actual, concrete controversy arises, as it is constitutionally barred from issuing advisory opinions on hypothetical scenarios.