The Senate Impeachment Court can proceed with voting on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte even if its conviction threshold is challenged before the Supreme Court, unless the high tribunal steps in with a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
House impeachment trial spokesperson and Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong delivered that assessment as debate intensifies over how to calculate the constitutionally required voting threshold for conviction.
Under Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, no official can be convicted in an impeachment trial without the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate.
Traditionally, that rule has been interpreted as requiring 16 votes in the 24-member chamber.
However, the discussion has re-emerged because several senator-judges have been unable to attend proceedings regularly. The absences recently prompted Sen. Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri to disclose discussions on whether the voting requirement should adapt to the Senate’s actual sitting membership when the final verdict is rendered.
Addressing the legal dynamic, Alonto Adiong emphasized that the Senate retains broad latitude to conduct the trial, but acknowledged that any dispute over constitutional interpretation ultimately rests with the Supreme Court.
“Unless and until the Supreme Court issues a TRO, then the Senate can proceed with the voting,” Alonto Adiong said during an interview. “Anything can be questioned before the Supreme Court. If it arises as a question of constitutionality, the only institution that can actually define and clarify some confusion as to how we interpret the Constitution is the Supreme Court.”
Alonto Adiong noted that the interplay between the Senate’s exclusive constitutional authority to try impeachment cases and the Supreme Court’s judicial review power remains untested under these exact conditions.
Should a petition reach the high court, he observed, a definitive ruling would provide valuable clarity for future proceedings.
“This is an open-ended situation where we really require, should there be a question before the Supreme Court, to find out how they would fill the gap,” he explained. “That would give us even more clarity, because the Supreme Court can give us a concrete and tangible understanding on how future impeachment proceedings with similar circumstances should be addressed when it comes to numbers.”
For its part, the House prosecution panel has maintained it will respect whichever voting rules the Senate impeachment court adopts, choosing instead to focus its efforts on presenting sufficient evidence to support the articles of impeachment.