Manila: The Senate impeachment court will seek the guidance of legal experts before voting on whether to retain the 16-vote threshold for conviction in Vice President Sara Z. Duterte's impeachment trial, presiding officer Francis Escudero said Tuesday. Before senator-judges decide, the court will hear from amici curiae or friends of the court, tentatively on Sept. 16, and hold oral arguments for the prosecution and defense on Sept. 23.
According to Philippines News Agency, Escudero said the court is considering retired Supreme Court justices and constitutional law experts as amici curiae, although no invitations have yet been issued. 'We will be enlisting the opinion and assistance of amici curiae, or friends of the court, so to speak, in order to give their opinion with respect to this issue,' he said.
The move stemmed from Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo's appeal seeking a definitive interpretation of the constitutional phrase 'all the Members of the Senate' amid the absence of several senators from the trial. 'What do we do? Where do we go? Is it really for 24? We count the 24? Or we only count those who are present right now, the 21,' Tulfo said.
Escudero treated Tulfo's manifestation as an appeal or reconsideration of his earlier ruling that a 'hard 16' votes, or two-thirds of the 24-member Senate, would be required to convict Duterte. 'It will be a vote by the impeachment court,' Escudero said when defense counsel Michael Poa sought clarification on how the appeal would eventually be resolved.
Senator-judge Pia Cayetano questioned whether the impeachment court itself has authority to revisit Escudero's earlier constitutional interpretation. 'The first question we need to ask is do we even have a right to decide on this?' Cayetano said, recalling Escudero's previous ruling that parties questioning the constitutional interpretation could seek judicial relief before the Supreme Court. She also urged the court to ensure that the invited legal experts represent the divergent views on the issue.
Senator-judge Bam Aquino, meanwhile, stressed that the threshold question should be separated from the merits of the impeachment case. 'The matter of threshold is not really a question of guilt or innocence. It is a matter of threshold,' Aquino said. He cautioned against automatically assuming that a position favoring a lower or higher threshold corresponds with either the prosecution or defense's position on Duterte's guilt.
Senator-judge Joel Villanueva said he initially considered the constitutional wording clear but supported further study now that Escudero's ruling has been appealed. 'No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate,' Villanueva quoted from the constitution. 'I thought that is non-debatable. But now that there's an appeal, which I totally understand . . . I wanted to learn, I wanted to study this particular matter,' he said.
Senator-judge Francis Pangilinan supported consulting independent legal experts, saying amici curiae are usually eminent lawyers, retired chief justices, Supreme Court justices or constitutional law specialists. 'Perhaps we should authorize the presiding officer, in consultation with both the defense and the prosecution, as well as our colleagues, [to] select the amici curiae,' Pangilinan said. Escudero said the selection would be made with the agreement of both parties and acknowledged that there are divergent legal views on the threshold question.
