The Senate impeachment court might require extra time to determine the required voting threshold to convict Vice President Sara Duterte, even after listening to oral arguments from both legal teams, Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson stated on Saturday, September 19.
Lacson noted that while senator-judges gained key legal perspectives from retired Supreme Court justices who acted as amici curiae (friends of the court), the chamber must weigh the positions of the House prosecutors and defense counsel before deciding on whether to maintain or adjust presiding officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s earlier directive requiring 16 votes for conviction.
“I’d like to think we would be given more time to sleep over it so we can dissect everything discussed during the oral arguments,” Lacson said during a radio interview.
“It may not be enough to vote immediately after the oral arguments. But that is the schedule we agreed upon at least for now,” he said.
“I’d rather wait for the oral arguments on Wednesday because the prosecution and defense will share their ideas and arguments. It is better to listen to them to broaden the basis of our decision,” he added.
The tribunal is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Wednesday, September 23, to assess the legal positions of both sides prior to casting a vote on the issue.
Lacson highlighted that any member of the tribunal could formally request a delay if the body needs more time to review the presented arguments.
“If some of us may still need more time, a motion may be made to defer the voting to the following week,” he said.
Reflecting on the expert testimonies, Lacson pointed to retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s breakdown of “textual vs. contextual” interpretation, retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban’s focus on “truth and fairness,” and retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna’s reasoning that “all means all” when setting the threshold.
While Puno, Panganiban, and Azcuna delivered their perspectives in person, retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. provided a written memorandum that was read into the record.
The lawmaker mentioned that he had sought input from additional legal scholars, including a former chief justice, regarding whether failing to reach the 16-vote mark would trigger an “automatic acquittal,” even in a scenario where nine senator-judges fail to attend.
Furthermore, Lacson expressed confidence that bringing in seasoned legal experts reinforces the tribunal’s integrity against potential accusations of procedural misconduct or overreach.
“I believe we exercised prudence and due diligence by consulting with legal eagles. You cannot downplay the importance of three former chief justices and one former senior associate justice. I would like to think that if anyone accuses us of grave abuse of discretion, our consultation with them would greatly weaken that argument,” he said.