Manila: Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna held his ground Wednesday, advocating for the inclusion of all 24 senators in the constitutional base for an impeachment vote, diverging from the more flexible interpretations suggested by other former magistrates advising the Senate impeachment court.

According to Philippines News Agency, Azcuna emphasized that the phrase 'all the Members of the Senate' pertains to the entire membership rather than the number of senators present or eligible to participate at the time of judgment in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. He insisted that membership alone should determine the denominator for calculating the two-thirds threshold, arguing that "all means all."

Azcuna cautioned against altering the denominator based on varying circumstances such as attendance, detention, or suspension, as it could lead to a fluctuating number required for conviction during the proceedings. "A threshold must be fixed, not variable. It must be determinable from the start," he stated. He expressed concerns that reducing the voting base could weaken the supermajority safeguard designed to ensure that the votes necessary for conviction exceed a simple majority, given that impeachment can remove an elected official before their term ends.

Azcuna's stance contrasted with that of retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who advocated for interpreting the constitutional provision within its context, taking into account circumstances that legally prevent a senator from acting as a senator-judge. Puno noted the Constitution's specification of a two-thirds fraction rather than setting a fixed number of 16 votes.

Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of a senator-judge's active participation in the proceedings to independently assess the evidence before casting a vote. Azcuna distinguished this concern from the denominator issue, asserting that absence from certain hearings should not automatically disqualify a senator-judge from voting. He pointed out that the impeachment court operates as a tribunal of record, enabling members to review transcripts, documentary evidence, and other records before reaching a decision.

Azcuna suggested that whether an absent senator has sufficiently studied the proceedings to vote could be addressed by the Senate through its own rules, without altering the constitutional definition of membership for the two-thirds requirement.