Panganiban: Counting absent senators in voting threshold unfair - GMA Network

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban on Wednesday said allowing senator-judges who did not participate in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte to vote and be included in determining the threshold for conviction would be unfair, if not unjust, to the Filipino people.

“Fairness [in judgment] can be rendered by two-thirds of those present [Senators],” Panganiban said during questioning by Senator-judge Panfilo Lacson on Day 26 of Duterte's impeachment trial.

The amici curiae, or friends of the court, were asked to weigh in on the voting threshold for conviction, given that at least four incumbent senators have not been able to participate in the impeachment trial.

“They were not in a position to know the truth [by being absent]. How can they render fairness to our people? Those (truth and fairness) are the standards, simple standards," Panganiban said.

"I'm not going to ask you to follow the rules of court. I'm not going to ask you to follow the technicalities of the law. All I'm saying is, are you in a position to know the truth? Are you in a position to render a fair judgment? I think that should be the test,” he added.

He was responding to a question from Senator-judge and Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian on whether the Senate impeachment court could render a fair judgment if absent senator-judges were allowed to vote and were included in determining the threshold for conviction.

“If they're not in a position to know the truth, then they should not dare vote and participate because that will be unfair to our people,” Panganiban added.

Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, for his part, said using fewer than 16 votes as the threshold for conviction could expose the Senate impeachment court's ruling to a Supreme Court challenge because the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of all members of the Senate for conviction.

“There could be grounds for Supreme Court intervention if a senator is not included in determining the threshold. The judgment could have a defect,” Azcuna said.

Azcuna warned that a conviction based on two-thirds of the participating senators, rather than two-thirds of all Senate members, could be challenged before the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

“Supposing there is a judgment of conviction based on 23 instead of 24. Two-thirds of 23. That's 15... 15 votes to convict. And the Senate said convicted. That conviction ruling based on 15 votes could be reversed by the Supreme Court because it is violation of the Constitution because it is not two-thirds of all the members,” Azcuna said.

“That is just my take,” he added.— MCG, GMA News