‘Lowering vote threshold may set dangerous precedent’

MANILA, Philippines —  Lowering or altering the constitutional threshold of 16 votes required to convict Vice President Sara Duterte poses a dangerous precedent for the Senate impeachment court, whose attendance rules and quorum have come under intense scrutiny.

Impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol raised the warning as he dismissed suggestions floated by House of Representatives prosecutors to lower the voting requirement, citing the frequent absence of several senator-judges. Tongol said the court cannot bend established legal standards for the convenience of any party.

“That is a dangerous proposal because it will necessarily entail the impeachment court to change the rules of the game mid-trial,” he said at a press conference.

“The impeachment court does not act for the convenience of either the prosecution or the defense,” he pointed out. “It is acting to uphold the due process requirements under the law.”

Tongol explained that presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero’s Day 1 ruling on July 6 setting the threshold at 16 votes – two-thirds of the entire 24-member Senate – was a deliberate legal move now “set in stone.”

Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Bayan v. Zamora, Tongol emphasized that the framers of the 1987 Constitution intentionally set a high bar for impeachment to protect the popular mandate of elected officials.

“Sixteen is really hard to achieve but the framers of the Constitution ensured that impeaching an impeachable officer would be hard because the impeachment court will necessarily cancel the mandate of the people who elected the impeachable officer. That’s why it is made extra hard,” he said.

Addressing concerns that the absences on the floor could compromise the trial’s integrity, Tongol clarified that physical absence from the session does not violate impeachment guidelines, as parliamentary rules recognize the doctrine of “constructive or continuing quorum.”

Legally acceptable

Tongol defended Senators Robinhood Padilla, Mark Villar and Bong Go after photos surfaced on social media showing them watching the Day 16 proceedings from the Senate lounge rather than at the session hall.

“Yes, it is legally acceptable,” Tongol said.

According to Tongol, once a senator registers his attendance during roll call, his presence is legally counted on the floor or in areas under the administrative control of the Senate leadership.

–  Marc Jayson Cayabyab, Daphne Galvez