Senator-judges vote 13-6-1 to determine the conviction threshold to be applied in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte at the Senate of the Philippines in Pasay City on Wednesday, September 23, 2026. Maria Tan, ABS-CBN NewsMANILA – The House prosecution panel expects the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte to continue despite two petitions filed before the Supreme Court questioning the Senate impeachment court’s ruling on the voting threshold for conviction.
Lawyers Vic Rodriguez and Ernesto Francisco Jr. separately asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the Senate impeachment court’s September 23 ruling, which abandoned the fixed 16-vote threshold and instead adopted a formula based on senators who are legally and factually capable of participating when judgment is rendered.
House lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro said the petitions were anticipated by the prosecution.
“This is no surprise to us. Sobrang anticipated namin na mayroong aakyat sa Supreme Court to question the ruling of the Honorable Impeachment Court on the interpretation of the denominator,” Luistro said in an interview on DZMM, Saturday morning.
SC TRO sought vs impeachment court ruling on conviction threshold
SC asked to issue status quo ante order vs Senate decision on voting threshold
Luistro maintained that the Senate impeachment court did not change the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote.
“The Honorable Impeachment Court did not change the threshold. ‘Ika nga nung kasama namin si Congressman Chel Diokno, two-thirds is two-thirds,” she said.
According to Luistro, the Senate merely interpreted the phrase “all members of the Senate” in light of the unusual composition of the impeachment court, where several senator-judges are unable to participate in the proceedings for various reasons.
“Ininterpret lang po nila ‘yung phrase na all members of the Senate because of the extraordinary situation of its composition nowadays,” she said.
The September 23 ruling excluded senators who are detained or suspended, physically or medically incapacitated, beyond the Senate’s coercive processes, or otherwise unable to participate from the denominator used to determine the two-thirds requirement.
Luistro said the prosecution’s position is that interpreting the impeachment voting rule falls within the Senate’s exclusive constitutional power to try and decide impeachment cases.
She cited Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states that the Senate has the exclusive power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
“By trying, it includes interpreting the rules with respect to the threshold vote,” Luistro said.
The prosecution also pointed to the Senate impeachment court’s qualification that its ruling applies only to the current case and should not automatically serve as precedent for future impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment court ‘fully prepared to defend’ voting threshold in Duterte trial: spokesperson
“Very significant ‘yung qualification ng ating impeachment court. Ibig sabihin, for that particular occasion only, and this will not serve as a precedent,” Luistro said.
She said the court took into account the “extraordinary situation” involving the composition of the current impeachment court.
Luistro also argued that a strictly literal interpretation of “all members” could potentially make the impeachment mechanism ineffective if several senators were unable to participate.
“From very literal to the interpretation of the law, then it will result in absurdity na kapag maraming senador ang may predicament na hindi maka-attend, it will render impeachment process futile or useless,” she said.
“Mawawalan ka ng accountability mechanism for the reason that naging very literal ka na wala ng majority and you cannot achieve the supposed threshold vote so parang naging useless ang Constitution mo,” she added.
VOTING THRESHOLD ‘FINAL ALREADY’
Asked whether the voting threshold could still become an issue when the Senate eventually votes on Duterte’s impeachment, Luistro said she does not expect the matter to be reopened.
“I think it’s final already,” she said.
She noted that Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo’s challenge to the original 16-vote requirement was treated as an appeal, which resulted in the September 23 ruling.
“So to your question, pwede pa ba ‘yung mabuksan at mapag-usapan, I don’t think. My answer is no,” Luistro said.
She acknowledged, however, that the Supreme Court may review the matter under limited circumstances.
“Generally speaking, not with particular reference dito sa ruling ng impeachment court. That is only when may grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” she said.
Luistro defended the process undertaken by the Senate impeachment court before it changed its interpretation, noting that the senator-judges heard from amici curiae, the prosecution and the defense before deliberating.
“Nakita mo naman, ang tagal nilang pinag-uusapan nitong threshold vote but they first invited amici, pinakinggan muna nila lahat ng amici curiae, the four of them,” she said.
“Then both parties were given opportunity to argue their position. Nakinig ulit ang mga senator-judges. Thereafter, sila mismo, they deliberated amongst themselves,” she added.
Two petitions have so far been filed before the Supreme Court. Rodriguez sought to nullify the September 23 ruling and asked for a temporary restraining order, while Francisco sought a status quo ante order.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said Friday that the impeachment trial would continue unless the Supreme Court issues an order stopping the proceedings.
RELATED VIDEOS: