Manila: Former Supreme Court magistrates have outlined potential safeguards to ensure that the detention or absence of senators does not skew the final vote in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. These safeguards range from remote participation options to legislative measures and clearer rules distinguishing Senate membership from the right to vote.
According to Philippines News Agency, the discussion arose as Senator-judge Joel Villanueva questioned the amici curiae, or friends of the court, on preventing two conflicting outcomes: senators blocking conviction by staying away or a majority lowering the threshold by excluding non-participating members. Villanueva emphasized that no senator should be able to influence the outcome by mere absence, nor should a majority manipulate the vote count by excluding opponents.
Retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna clarified that a senator remains part of the voting denominator as long as they hold office, regardless of their ability to vote. He suggested that the denominator would only reduce upon death, resignation, or removal from office. Azcuna proposed enacting a law to ensure that detained senators could participate in impeachment proceedings, thereby addressing scenarios where detention leaves a senator unable to vote.
Currently, detained senators require permission from the Sandiganbayan to attend Senate sessions or the impeachment trial. Retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno supported the idea that detention need not exclude a senator-judge from proceedings. He suggested allowing detained members to engage remotely, follow testimonies electronically, and receive transcripts, citing past instances where courts permitted detained individuals to perform other public functions.
Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban agreed that detention does not strip a senator of their membership. However, he raised the complex issue of whether a senator who misses proceedings can still evaluate evidence. Panganiban noted that an impeachment court functions as a trial court, where senator-judges are expected to assess witnesses' credibility firsthand.
The differing perspectives prompted Villanueva to reconsider his understanding of the constitutional requirements regarding the two-thirds vote in impeachment and other constitutional matters. He noted that the insights from the former justices had transformed what seemed a straightforward requirement into a complex issue.
Panganiban concluded by reminding senator-judges that the proceedings should address the public's demand for justice, while Puno emphasized the importance of an impartial tribunal for the respondent.
