The Supreme Court has ruled that three challenges to the Senate impeachment court's lower conviction threshold for Vice President Sara Duterte were filed by the wrong people at the wrong time. What it has not ruled is whether the threshold itself is constitutional.
According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer (Tetch Torres-Tupas) and GMA News (Joahna Lei Casilao), the Supreme Court en banc on September 30 dismissed all three petitions on procedural grounds, citing lack of standing and prematurity. The Inquirer reported the dismissal was unanimous, with Acting Chief Justice Marvic Leonen presiding. The petitioners were former Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez, Berteni Causing and lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr.
What the Court did, and didn't, decide
The petitions targeted the Senate impeachment court's September 23 ruling, which read "all the Members of the Senate" to exclude senators who are detained, medically incapacitated, in hiding or otherwise unavailable. In practice, that lowered the votes needed to convict Duterte. Pulpulitiko earlier reported that the change cut the number from 16 to 14.
Per the Inquirer, the Court said it dismissed the petitions on procedural grounds without substantively addressing the underlying constitutional question about how votes are counted. Rodriguez had argued the impeachment court effectively amended the Constitution. Causing argued all serving senators should count regardless of availability. Francisco maintained conviction requires 16 votes based on the full 24-member chamber. None of those arguments was tested on the merits.
Victory laps
The reaction was less restrained than the ruling. GMA News quoted Supreme Court spokesperson Regie Tongol as saying that "by junking these challenges, the Highest Court has drawn a definitive firewall" protecting Senate independence. The impeachment court itself characterized the outcome as confirming its proceedings are "constitutionally bulletproof," per GMA. House prosecutor Terry Ridon said the trial would continue "tomorrow and in the coming days."
A "firewall" and "bulletproof" are generous descriptions of a decision that, by the Court's own account as reported, declined to look at the question. A dismissal for prematurity says a challenge may come later; it does not say the ruling is right. If a verdict turns on the 14-vote count, the issue could return in a form the Court considers ripe.
Still unknown
Neither outlet's report, as available to Pulpulitiko, indicated whether the Court set out when a future challenge would be considered timely or who would have standing to bring it. Nor is it clear whether any justice wrote separately. Pulpulitiko has not reviewed the full text of the resolution.
Context
The Senate impeachment court has been trying Duterte since July. A Manila Times report on September 10 cited Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian as hoping the trial would conclude before December, with four senator-judges unable to participate. That absence is what makes the threshold question matter: the fewer senators counted, the fewer votes needed.
Sources
- Philippine Daily Inquirer, "SC junks petitions vs Senate impeachment court's voting rule" (Tetch Torres-Tupas): https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2314245/supreme-court-junks-pleas-vs-senate-impeachment-courts-vote-threshold
- GMA News, "SC junks petitions challenging Sara Duterte impeachment voting threshold" (Joahna Lei Casilao): https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/1004276/sc-junks-petitions-challenging-sara-duterte-impeachment-voting-threshold/story/
- The Manila Times via Newswav, "Impeachment verdict expected in December": https://newswav.com/article/impeachment-verdict-expected-in-december-A2609_74y5Cd