Adiong: VP Duterte threshold ruling anchored on ‘very extraordinary’ Senate circumstances

THE revised voting threshold in Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s impeachment trial was fashioned for an extraordinary situation affecting the present Senate rather than as a universal formula for impeachment cases.

“So ’yun po ’yung pinakapunto doon na very extraordinary itong nangyayari affecting the membership of the Senate,” trial spokesperson Zia Alonto Adiong of Lanao del Sur explained after Wednesday’s proceedings.

The dispute arose because the Senate has members who are detained, absent, medically unavailable or otherwise unable to participate fully in the impeachment proceedings.

The Constitution requires concurrence by two-thirds of all Senate members for conviction but does not state a fixed numerical figure.

“But as to the practical application of this fraction of two-thirds to arrive into a conclusive number for the Senate to render its final decision, ’yun po ’yung pinag-usapan dito,” Alonto Adiong explained.

The familiar figure of 16 votes assumes a complete 24-member Senate able to discharge its functions when the court reaches judgment.

“And the anticipation of that 24 is with the assumption na walang consequences or particular circumstance na mangyayari aside from ’yung sinasabi nilang death or vacancy,” Alonto Adiong noted.

The Impeachment Court ultimately adopted an interpretation designed to address senators who may be legally or factually unable to participate when the final vote is taken.

“Ang sabi niya, this can only be applied in this particular case because of an extra circumstantial situation that the Senate is now facing,” Alonto Adiong explained.

The court also limited its ruling to the present proceeding rather than making it binding on future Senates.

“Ito lang sa particular na circumstance ngayon dahil meron pong extraordinary na nangyari sa mga miyembro ng Senado,” Alonto Adiong stressed.

For the prosecution, that limitation recognizes that another Senate faced with a different membership and different circumstances may have to reach its own interpretation of the constitutional requirement.