VP impeachment trial: Senate gavel up for grabs

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

MANILA, Philippines — Acting Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian could be open to stepping aside to allow another senator, preferably a lawyer, to preside over the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said yesterday.

In an interview over radio dzBB, Lacson said whether it would be Sen. Francis Escudero or Sen. Francis Pangilinan, the Senate could use its newly amended rules to elect a lawyer to serve as impeachment presiding officer.

“No, we don’t have to decide who is the next president. We amended the rules about whether we can elect a presiding officer not necessarily the Senate president because it’s a bit chaotic, we don’t have a Senate president,” he said.

While Lacson did not mention names, he confirmed that a majority vote would be electing the new presiding officer.

“Whether it’s Chiz (Escudero) or Kiko (Pangilinan) or anybody for that matter, we will elect… We will decide that. We in the Senate majority will elect,” he added.

Lacson clarified that the move is not an insult to Gatchalian, who currently holds the position.

Lacson stressed that despite ongoing legal arguments from outside groups, the constitutional threshold of 16 votes to convict an impeached official remains absolute and cannot be legally adjusted downward regardless of the chamber’s active headcount.

He shot down speculations floated by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, who recently insinuated that the new majority bloc might attempt to lower the threshold for a conviction to just 12 votes due to the current Senate composition.

“I can only speak for myself and I think some of my colleagues in the majority bloc, that we must stick to the Constitution first and foremost. Sixteen votes or two-thirds of 24 will be needed to convict. You cannot subtract from that,” Lacson said.

He also raised concerns that if the ombudsman proceeds to preventively suspend at least nine senators implicated in the flood control anomaly, the chamber would be mathematically incapable of reaching the strict constitutional threshold of 16 votes required to convict an impeached official.

“What if nine senators are detained and 15 are left in the impeachment court? How will there be a clear decision to convict or acquit? Does it mean automatic acquittal because only 15 are available to vote? To me it should not,” he said.

To avert a constitutional crisis, Lacson said the Senate and the impeachment court should be viewed as distinct entities.

He argued that a preventive suspension from regular legislative duties might not legally bar a lawmaker from fulfilling their mandate as a senator-judge.

“It is worth studying that while the impeachment court and Senate have the same composition, and this is subject to interpretation if it comes to that, the two are separate entities and the suspension of senators applies to their legislative functions and not to their duties as senator-judges,” he explained.

What’s the number?

Legal and political debate continues over the interpretation of the constitutional phrase “two-thirds of all the members of the Senate” in impeachment proceedings, with differing views on whether it refers to the entire Senate membership or only those who participate in the trial.

Lawyers and commentators have cited the verba legis or plain meaning rule in constitutional interpretation, which states that courts do not interpret a provision when the language is clear, categorical and free from ambiguity.

Some legal voices, including Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua and lawyer Lorna Kapunan have argued that the required two-thirds vote should be computed based only on senators who actively participate in the impeachment trial.

Others have questioned this interpretation, pointing out that the Constitution states “all members of the Senate” without qualification on participation.