The Supreme Court has directed respondents to submit their comments within five days following a resolution issued on October 14 regarding a petition filed by Senators Robin Padilla and Christopher “Bong” Go.
The lawmakers are challenging the constitutionality of the Senate Impeachment Tribunal’s September 23 ruling, which altered the constitutional voting threshold required to convict an impeached official.
As of posting time, it remained unconfirmed whether the respondents—the Senate of the Philippines as the Impeachment Court, represented by Senate President Win Gatchalian; Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero; the House of Representatives led by Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy III; and the prosecution panel led by Batangas 2nd District Representative Gerville Luistro—have submitted their responses to both the main petition and the requests for injunctive relief, such as a temporary restraining order (TRO), status quo ante order (SQAO), or writ of preliminary injunction.
This legal development follows the High Tribunal’s September 30 dismissal of three prior petitions challenging the same Senate ruling, which were thrown out on procedural grounds including lack of standing and prematurity.
Those earlier challenges were filed by former Executive Secretary Vic Rodriguez, Berteni Cataluna Causing, and Atty. Ernesto Francisco Jr., all of whom similarly requested that the voting threshold be reverted to two-thirds of the entire 24-member Senate as stipulated by the Constitution.
In their current petition, Senators Padilla and Go—alongside co-petitioners PDP-LABAN represented by Chairman Alfonso Cusi, lawyers Esraelito Torreon, James Patrick “Jimmy” Bondoc, Ferdinand Topacio, Raul Lambino, Resci Angelli Rizada-Nolasco, and Philip Salvador—argued that the fundamental law mandates the concurrence of at least 16 out of 24 senators for a conviction.
They emphasized that no active senator may be excluded from the tally due to detention, suspension, absence, or non-participation.
The petitioners further urged the Supreme Court to declare any potential conviction of Vice President Sara Duterte under the contested ruling null and void if handed down while the case remains pending. Highlighting the gravity of removing a nationally elected official, the petitioners stated:
”The Constitution does not count only the Senators it finds convenient. It says ‘all,’ and ‘all’ has never meant ‘some.’ Two-thirds of twenty-four is sixteen. It was sixteen when the Senate convicted a Chief Justice, and it was sixteen on the first day of this trial. It cannot become fourteen because a majority, in the middle of the proceedings and for this case alone, has decided which of its own members deserve to be counted.”
They added that the power to unseat an official is tightly restricted by constitutional numbers that a simple majority cannot lower:
”The Senate may try. The Senate may decide. It may not convict with fewer votes than the Constitution requires. Impeachment answers to the Constitution, not to the preferences of those who wield it. If the arithmetic of conviction can be changed whenever the votes fall short, the threshold stops being a safeguard and becomes a target.”
Clarifying the objective of their legal challenge, the petitioners noted that they are not seeking an acquittal or a conviction, but rather intervention to ensure adherence to foundational rules:
”The Court to count, and in counting, to remind every branch of government that the Constitution is not suspended when it becomes inconvenient.”
They warned that altering procedural requirements mid-process poses a broader threat:
”When the rules are rewritten so the outcome can come out differently, the verdict is not the only thing on trial, the Republic is.”