Citing prematurity and a lack of legal standing, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition filed by Senators Robin Padilla and Christopher “Bong” Go challenging the Senate’s modified impeachment voting threshold.
The controversy stems from a September 23 Senate Impeachment Tribunal ruling. Instead of requiring a strict two-thirds vote of the entire 24-member Senate (16 votes), the tribunal decided that the requirement should be calculated based only on senators legally and factually capable of participating at the time of judgment.
OSG Arguments for Dismissal
Representing the respondents, the OSG told the High Court that the petitioners lack a clear legal right and personal injury. It noted that Vice President Sara Duterte—who would be directly affected by the rule change—is not a party to the case.
“Removal and disqualification would affect Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, who is not a party here and has reserved her own remedies. Petitioners cannot rest their application on a non-party’s injury,” the OSG stated.
The OSG also argued that the matter is a political question meant to be decided solely by the legislature, emphasizing that the Senate’s ruling merely interpreted the constitutional provision rather than amending it.
“Respectfully, Respondent reminds that the framers of the Constitution, when drafting the provisions which would come to lay out the impeachment, placed the process away from the judiciary, and into the authority and power of the political branches,” the OSG said.
Furthermore, the OSG defended the threshold adjustment as neither arbitrary nor oppressive, noting it aligns with principles where detained or medically incapacitated officials cannot perform functions.
“The Senate’s threshold ruling was an attempt to remove the two-thirds requirement. It was a rule on who should be counted as part of the Senate Impeachment Court when some senators are unable to take their oaths or participate,” the OSG added, stressing that the Constitution should not force the Senate to count non-participating members.
Petitioners’ Stance
The petition was filed by Senators Padilla and Go alongside PDP-LABAN, several lawyers, and Philip Salvador. They argue that the threshold cannot be altered mid-trial to suit a lower number of votes.
“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,” the petitioners argued.
They stressed that the power to remove a nationally elected official is a grave constitutional safeguard that cannot be lowered by a majority preference.
Respondents in the case include the Senate of the Philippines represented by Senate President Win Gatchalian, 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.
This motion follows the Supreme Court’s September 30 dismissal of three similar petitions filed by Vic Rodriguez, Berteni Cataluna Causing, and Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco Jr. on identical procedural grounds.