Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero on Tuesday said the 16-vote threshold needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte now stands as a ruling of the court after no senator-judge objected to it.
The clarification came after Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson asked whether Escudero’s statement on the required number of votes was only a personal legal opinion or already a ruling of the impeachment court.
“My point of inquiry, Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer, is, is this portion of your opening statement a matter of legal opinion on your part as presiding officer or does it constitute a ruling by the impeachment court?” Lacson said.
He also asked whether the issue could now be considered a justiciable controversy that may be brought before the Supreme Court.
“If the response is that it is the latter, does this mean that this court, through the presiding officer, has raised a level of discourse to a justiciable issue or a dispute that the Supreme Court may have legal authority to settle and resolve?” Lacson said.
Lacson noted that Escudero had earlier said any party disagreeing with the ruling may elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.
“Just a point of inquiry, Mr. Senate President, Presiding Officer, just so it will be clear to our fellow senator-judges, as well as the panel of prosecutors and defense, and the public in general,” Lacson said.
“In case either one or both panels in front of us decide to exercise their right to challenge the said ruling, should they deem it as a grave abuse of discretion by this court? I submit, Your Honor,” he added.
Lacson was referring to Escudero’s opening statement on Monday after he was elected presiding officer of the impeachment court.
In that statement, Escudero said conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of “all” members of the Senate.
“With 24 members of the Senate, a literal interpretation of this means that conviction requires the affirmative vote of at least 16 senator-judges,” Escudero said.
Escudero said this interpretation was supported by the 2000 case of Bayan v. Zamora, which dealt with the Senate’s compliance with the two-thirds vote required to concur in a treaty.
“Despite having only 23 incumbent senators at the time then-senator Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected vice president therefore there were only 23 senators, the Supreme Court held: The charter provides that the Senate shall be composed of 24 senators, without a tinge of doubt, two-thirds of the figure or not less than 16 members is an unquestionable compliance with the requisite number of votes mentioned in Section 21 of Article 7,” Escudero said.
He added: “This is the prevailing law today. And whether we agree with it or not, we must abide by it.”
During Tuesday’s proceedings, Escudero said the threshold should be treated as a ruling because no member of the impeachment court objected or appealed.
“The response of the presiding officer is in the affirmative. In fact, the journal that we just approved contains a similar inquiry by Senator-Judge (Alan Peter) Cayetano yesterday (Monday) when he inquired if it was the position and ruling of the presiding officer, and the presiding officer answered in the affirmative,” Escudero said.
“So, to clarify, yes, I believe it may be considered already as a justiciable controversy, although it is not for us to dictate that but the courts, given that it is a ruling of the chair not objected to nor appealed by any member of this court and therefore stands,” he added.