Manila:Presiding officer Francis 'Chiz' Escudero on Wednesday outlined the procedural basis for possibly reopening the impeachment court's ruling regarding the voting threshold, suggesting this could be used in a future challenge by Vice President Sara Duterte before the Supreme Court.

According to Philippines News Agency, Escudero addressed concerns from the defense that the period for questioning his July 6 decision on the conviction threshold had expired. He explained that the court's perspective on this matter was recorded to ensure that any party wishing to contest it would have a complete picture.

Escudero argued that neither the regular Senate rules nor the 15-day period in the Rules of Court should dictate the internal appeal process of the impeachment court. He noted that under impeachment rules, Senate and court procedures are only supplementary and that the presiding officer's rulings do not have a specific deadline for challenges.

Escudero treated Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo's September 8 challenge to the threshold as an appeal, allowing senator-judges to consider the matter. He explained that if the Senate rule requiring reconsideration within the same or next two session days were applied to the July 6 ruling, the same period would apply to the September 8 action as well.

He emphasized that a party cannot claim the lapse of time to uphold the earlier ruling while ignoring a similar lapse for a subsequent action. However, Escudero reiterated that the impeachment court's rules prescribe no specific period for asking the full court to vote on the chair's ruling.

Escudero rejected the notion that the July 6 interpretation had become final simply due to the passage of time, pointing out that it was not a final judgment on any article of impeachment. He cited jurisprudence indicating that judicial doctrines might be reconsidered, allowing interpretations made during an impeachment trial to be revisited if not prohibited by governing rules.

The procedural explanation came as deliberations continued on whether the constitutional requirement of two-thirds of all senators should remain at 16 votes or change under certain conditions. This issue might eventually be reviewed by the Supreme Court if contested by one of the parties involved.