Manila: Senator-Judge Panfilo Lacson on Wednesday explored the resilience of the Constitution's impeachment vote rule in the face of extraordinary absences that its framers may not have anticipated. He raised the possibility that the Senate's eventual interpretation could be contested before the Supreme Court.
According to Philippines News Agency, during a session featuring amici curiae, or friends of the court, Lacson posed a hypothetical scenario to retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna. He asked Azcuna to consider a situation where nine of the 24 senators were stranded abroad due to a prolonged war, leaving only 15 senators available to participate, despite the nine retaining their Senate membership. Azcuna, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, asserted that the denominator would remain 24, and thus, conviction would still necessitate 16 votes. He explained that a failure to obtain 16 votes would result in an acquittal, not because acquittal secured more votes, but because the constitutional requirement for conviction was unmet.
The Constitution stipulates that no impeached official may be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of 'all the Members of the Senate.' Presiding officer Francis 'Chiz' Escudero has interpreted this as requiring 16 votes from the current 24-member chamber. This interpretation was challenged by Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo. Azcuna remarked that the occasional failure of impeachment under such circumstances is a consequence of maintaining a supermajority safeguard, noting that criminal prosecution, forfeiture proceedings, and elections remain other forms of accountability.
Lacson questioned whether the framers of the 1987 Constitution could have foreseen scenarios where several senators might be detained, in hiding, or abroad and unable to participate. He argued that evolving circumstances could test a rigid interpretation of the two-thirds provision, especially if fewer than 16 senator-judges remain capable of acting. Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban concurred that such situations should not incapacitate the Senate. He stated that the remaining members should still be able to decide the case, suggesting that fairness can be achieved by two-thirds of those present, even if obtaining 16 votes is impossible.
Lacson also inquired about the potential for the Senate's interpretation of the threshold to transition from a political question to one reviewable by the Supreme Court. He raised this concern following a manifestation ad cautelam by defense counsel Michael Poa and indicated that the impeachment court should consider the possibility of its eventual ruling being challenged. Panganiban stated that disagreement by the Supreme Court with the Senate's interpretation would not automatically warrant judicial intervention. He emphasized that the court would assess whether there was grave abuse of discretion, capriciousness, whimsicality, or arbitrariness in the Senate's decision-making process.
Panganiban added that the Senate's decision to seek the views of former Supreme Court magistrates demonstrated that senator-judges were seriously examining the constitutional issue rather than acting arbitrarily. He argued that the Supreme Court's disagreement with the Senate's interpretation should not lead to faulting the Senate for engaging in thoughtful debate. Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution empowers courts to determine whether any branch or instrumentality of government committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has also held in Duterte's impeachment litigation that Congress' impeachment powers are subject to constitutional limits and judicial review for grave abuse.
