Manila: Retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno rejected a literal reading of the Constitution that would fix at 16 the votes needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte, saying the count may change depending on certain factors.
According to Philippines News Agency, Puno stated that if Article 11, Section 3(6) were to be read literally, the threshold of 16 Senators to convict would be fixed and immutable. He argued that if fixing the number of votes at 16 were the intent, the article should have plainly stated so. He highlighted that the Constitution's language requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all Senate members for conviction, indicating a fraction rather than a fixed number.
Puno addressed the Senate impeachment court, discussing whether the voting base should include the full membership of 24 senators or only those legally and physically capable of participating and voting in an impeachment trial. He opposed isolating the conviction provision from other parts of the Constitution, suggesting that doing so would render the 16-vote requirement unchangeable.
He advocated for a contextual and functional interpretation of the Constitution, which involves reading the impeachment provision alongside other constitutional provisions and considering whether a senator is capable of performing the duties of the office. He identified circumstances such as death, resignation, expulsion, and legal incapacity, including preventive suspension, as factors that could influence who should be counted in determining the two-thirds requirement.
Puno emphasized the importance of flexibility for senators to consider circumstances that may legally prevent a senator from functioning as a member of the Senate. He warned against an isolated, literal reading, which could lead to outcomes that defeat the Constitution's purpose.
Addressing constitutional first impressions, Puno noted that the questions now before the Senate impeachment court are issues of first impression, meaning they have not been previously resolved under similar circumstances. He explained that past constitutional deliberations did not discuss the current issues, and even foreign rulings offer only comparative guidance due to the unique nature of the country's constitutional structure.
Puno concluded by stressing that the Senate must resolve the dispute by weighing competing constitutional approaches and their consequences, rather than treating any one method as unquestionably correct. He remarked that there is no correct or wrong decision on these issues, only a preferred decision.
