House prosecutor Chel Diokno questioned the use of a fixed 24-member Senate as the denominator for determining the two-thirds voting threshold in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Wednesday, September 23.
During his oral arguments on the disputed voting threshold, Diokno raised scenarios involving senators who are unable to participate in the impeachment proceedings, including those who have not taken their oath or are legally prevented from performing their duties.
“As some of the amici curiae were asked at the last hearing or oral argument, a situation na may senador na hindi nakapag-oath for whatever reason o kaya legally prevented from performing a senator’s job dahil nakakulong at suspended sa katungkulan dahil sa utos ng batas,” Diokno said.
He argued that senators who cannot participate in the proceedings cannot hear the evidence, deliberate on the case, or cast a vote.
“Their inability to participate is beyond dispute. And yet, if the denominator is fixed at 24, conviction would always require 16 votes. Absurd po ito,” he added.
Diokno acknowledged that the Constitution intentionally sets a high bar for conviction by requiring a two-thirds vote, but argued that the requirement should not be based on senators who are unable to perform the functions of senator-judges.
“Yes, the Constitution deliberately makes conviction harder by imposing the two-thirds requirement, but making it harder is not the same as making it depend on senators who are not judges, of who are incapable of acting as judges,” he said.
The Senate impeachment court is hearing oral arguments from both the prosecution and defense on the disputed interpretation of the constitutional requirement that conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
