Why do the six want 16?
By Herbert Vego
AS we all know, six senators walked out of the Senate Impeachment Court last Wednesday to dramatize their “disgust” when the court decided to lower the number of votes needed for a conviction.
Indeed, the court voted to lower the number of votes to convict the impeached Vice President Sara Duterte from 16 to 14.
In fact, lawyers Vic Rodriguez and Ernesto “Jun” Francisco Jr. have filed separate petitions before the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the impeachment court’s ruling.
They did it on behalf of six senator judges who boycotted the division of the house – Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Christopher “Bong” Go, Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla and Camille Villar.
The division of the house was in response to the appeal by Senator Erwin Tulfo to overturn the previous July 6 ruling by Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero.
To recall, the Senate sitting as an impeachment court voted 13–1 to lower the vote threshold required to convict Vice President Sara Duterte by counting only senator-judges actively participating in the trial.
The 13 are Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino IV, JV Ejercito, Sherwin Gatchalian, Risa Hontiveros, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Francis Pangilinan, Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, Erwin Tulfo, Raffy Tulfo, Joel Villanueva, Mark Villar and Juan Miguel Zubiri.
Escudero cast the lone negative vote against lowering the threshold, which was consistent with his position as presiding officer when he ruled on July 6, 2026 that the constitutional requirement of two-thirds of “all the Members of the Senate” meant a fixed 16 votes out of the 24-member chamber.
Since the six boycotting senators are publicly known as “friends” of VP Sara, their decision to boycott the threshold voting could be construed to mirror their bias.
The disagreement on the “two-thirds” sprang from the fact that two senators who are also “friends” of the vice president, Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada, are in jail over non bailable plunder charges, while Ronald dela Rosa is in hiding because of a warrant of arrest from the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity.
For that reason, there are only 21 active senator judges, including Senator Loren Legarda, who is still on leave for medical treatment of an unspecified lung disease in France.
The court ruled that the phrase “all the members of the Senate” in the Constitution should be computed only from senator-judges who are legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings at the time of the vote.
Unless restrained by the Supreme Court for grave abuse of discretion, the impeachment court may continue the trial of vice president Sara Duterte as long as it has a quorum, even without the defense present, according to Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian.
I agree with the impeachment court’s ruling: The 16-vote requirement could no longer hold ground because the constitutional two-thirds threshold would have to be computed based on the senators who are physically present during the trial.
A two-thirds majority of 21 participating members — or 14 votes out of 21 senator judges—is required to convict the impeached public official.
If only 13 senators vote to convict, it will still count as two-thirds based on Presiding Officer Escudero’s ruling that any fractional result – in this case 13.33 — must be rounded up to the next whole number.
That jibes with Article XI, Sec. 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution:
“The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation… No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
Take note that “all the members of the Senate” in the phrase “when sitting for that purpose” necessitates the sitting presence of senator judges, not those standing in jail or hiding behind the rocks.
Ergo, it would be easier to convict VP Sara on a count of 14 votes. That answers our above question why the six friends of VP Sara want 16.
Comments (0)
LEAVE A REPLY
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts!
Related Articles
The ethics of artistic nudity
TO judge artistic nudity ethically, we need first principles, not mere taste. Without clear concepts, discussion slips into emotion, confusion, or ideology, losing sight of the person entirely. St. John Paul II offers a key insight: nudity finds its proper home in interpersonal communion. The body speaks a profound language, and
Drones, degrees, and dollars
Manila is exhausted. We know it. The foreign investors know it. For decades, international capital treated the capital region as the only front door to the Philippines. But something shifted this week. When Australian Ambassador Marc Innes-Brown sat down in Iloilo, he wasn’t just doing the usual diplomatic rounds. He brought a directive — a
Politics of mathematics
The impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte has taken a rousing turn with the entanglement of politics and mathematics. The politics of mathematics has taken center stage in the last two weeks at the impeachment court as math and politics have become enmeshed. Politics colliding with mathematics is knotty and messy.