The petition for certiorari and prohibition, filed on October 6, challenges the Impeachment Court’s September 23 ruling allowing the two-thirds requirement to be calculated based only on senators considered legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings.
OrderCalendars
The ruling was approved by a 13-1 vote, with six senator-judges not participating. It also reversed the July 6 ruling of the Presiding Officer that a conviction would require 16 votes.
The petitioners argue that the Constitution requires the vote of two-thirds of all members of the Senate. Since the Senate has 24 members, they maintain that 16 votes are needed for an impeachment conviction.
They said senators who are absent, detained, ill, or otherwise unable to participate remain members of the Senate unless their seats have been vacated.
The petitioners stressed that their challenge does not seek to determine whether Duterte should be convicted or acquitted. Instead, they are asking the Supreme Court to address the constitutional basis for determining the required voting threshold.
They also argued that allowing the threshold to change depending on the number of participating senators could effectively reduce the supermajority requirement set by the Constitution.
The group acknowledged that the Supreme Court dismissed three earlier petitions challenging the September 23 ruling on September 30, citing procedural issues including lack of legal standing and prematurity.
They said the latest petition has a different basis because Padilla and Go are sitting senator-judges whose votes and constitutional responsibilities are directly affected by the disputed ruling.
Joining Padilla and Go as petitioners are PDP-Laban, represented by its Chairman Alfonso Cusi; Atty. Israelito P. Torreon; Atty. James Patrick Bondoc; Atty. Ferdinand S. Topacio; Atty. Raul L. Lambino; Philip Salvador; and Atty. Resci Angelli R. Rizada-Nolasco.
The petition names as respondents the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, Presiding Officer Francis G. Escudero, and the House of Representatives.
The petitioners are also seeking a Status Quo Ante Order and/or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction while the Supreme Court considers their challenge.
📷 Senate of the Philippines