House prosecution panel spokesperson Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. clarified that prosecutors are not advocating for a change to the constitutional two-thirds vote requirement needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte.
Tolosa stressed that the prosecution remains focused on constructing an airtight case supported by solid evidence to meet the 16-vote threshold set by Senator and presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero.
“We’ve always said our focus is to present an airtight case, and sisiguraduhin namin we will be able to back it up with solid evidence para kung anuman ‘yan, ultimately, anong magiging interpretation sa two-thirds vote, we will be able to secure that,” he said.
Under the 1987 Constitution, convicting an impeached official requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all Senate members. Based on the 24-member upper chamber, Escudero ruled that a minimum of 16 affirmative votes is mandatory.
Tolosa addressed media reports that misinterpreted his previous remarks regarding the frequent absences of some senator-judges. He reiterated that the prosecution panel has consistently respected Escudero’s ruling and avoids vote projections.
“We’re not giving the impression or the message na gusto na naming palitan nila ang two-thirds vote. We’ve never said that, and we’re not saying that now,” Tolosa said during an online press briefing.
“And if it’s two-thirds, we respect it. And again, our job is to present evidence to secure that vote,” he added.
He reaffirmed that the prosecution’s stance has been steadfast since the presiding officer issued the ruling.
“Our position on this has been consistent from the start. Mula nung ginawa ‘yang desisyon na ‘yan ng presiding officer, we always said we will respect it,” Tolosa said.
“And we always said, anyway, that has never been our focus. We don’t engage in vote counting from the start,” he added.
Tolosa explained that his earlier remarks merely addressed procedural possibilities regarding whether the impeachment court could choose to revisit the ruling, not that it ought to do so.
“What I said was, hindi, it’s not unreasonable to think that perhaps this could be a factor (absence of senator-judges during the trial) that we consider in determining whether there’s a need for them to revisit it,” he said.
He noted that his comments were wrongly taken as a push to lower the required votes.
“What I was saying was that because of the absence, this should cause them to change their stand on the two-thirds vote. These are completely different matters,” Tolosa said.
In his personal view, Tolosa observed that because Escudero’s ruling is an interlocutory order rather than a final determination, nothing in the rules prohibits a senator from raising the matter for reconsideration.
“I think it’s an interlocutory order. At the end of the day, if a senator is so minded to ask the body to revisit it and vote on it, I think, in my personal opinion, is nothing in the rules prevent them from doing that because it’s not a final order,” he said.
He reiterated, however, that he was simply pointing out procedural rules rather than calling on the impeachment court to modify the voting baseline.