Poa: Change in vote threshold may affect provisions in Constitution

MANILA, Philippines – Changing the vote threshold to convict Vice President Sara Duterte in the impeachment trial may have consequences in Constitutional provisions, defense counsel Michael Poa warned on Wednesday.

This, as Poa asserted, means that the vote requirement to convict Duterte must remain at 16.

“If we were to lower the threshold here, we will not be lowering the threshold in a vacuum. May consequences po yan. Marami pong constitutional provisions ang maaapektuhan… Are we going to also adjust the threshold in those provisions?” Poa argued.

Article continues after this advertisement

(If we were to lower the threshold here, we will not be lowering the threshold in a vacuum. That has consequences. Many constitutional provisions will be affected… Are we going to also adjust the threshold in those provisions?)

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

He continued: “Because if we were to do that, hindi na po threshold ang tawag doon. Moving target na po yun para sa mga taong gustong magbenefit from circumstances.”

(Because if we were to do that, it wouldn’t be called a threshold anymore. It’s a moving target for people who want to benefit from circumstances.)

READ: Defense, prosecution to present oral arguments on voting threshold

Constitutional provisions that may be affected include the extending or revoking of martial law, expelling of Senators, and even amending the Constitution itself, Poa stressed.

Article continues after this advertisement

Poa further emphasized that the two-thirds vote required by the Constitution to convict an impeached official safeguards not only the respondent but also the Senator-judges.

“The two-thirds supermajority is obviously a constitutional safeguard for the respondent. It ensures na hindi matatanggal ang matataas na opisyal ng ating bansa dahil lang hindi niya kaalyado ang mayorya sa impeachment court,” he began.

Article continues after this advertisement

(The two-thirds supermajority is obviously a Constitutional safeguard for the respondent. It ensures that high officials of our country cannot be removed simply because they are not allied with the majority in the impeachment court,)

“In the same manner, it is also a Constitutional safeguard for the Senator-judges themselves. Because if absence, and detention would change the denominator, then you will be opening yourselves up to being coerced, being intimidated,” Poa added.

The lawyer also said that changing the voting threshold mid-trial may raise questions about whether the respondent is “being afforded due process guaranteed by the Constitution.”

He pointed out that when the trial commenced on July 6, 2026, upon the ruling of presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero, there were no objections made on following the 16-vote requirement for conviction.

“That time, no Senator-judge objected. No Senator-judge sought reconsideration. No Senator-judge appealed. That was over two months ago. Thereafter, witnesses were able to testify, evidence was presented, and the parties were already in the middle of trial, relying upon such ruling of the presiding officer,” Poa said.

While the rules of impeachment do not specify a timeframe for a motion for reconsideration, Poa noted that even the Senate rules and rules of court, which state that reconsiderations may be motioned within two or 15 days, respectively, have already lapsed.

In addition, Poa stated that there are no sufficient grounds to appeal Escudero’s ruling.

“Wala namang nagbago mula July 6, 2026 hanggang ngayong araw. Yung sinasabi nating mga senador na hindi nakakapagparticipate, with the exception of Sen. [Loren] Legarda, ay hindi na rin po nakapag participate nung July 6 bago pa maissue yung ruling,” Poa recalled.

(Nothing has changed from July 6, 2026 until today. The senators we are talking about who were unable to participate, with the exception of Sen. [Loren] Legarda, were also unable to participate on July 6 before the ruling was issued,)

Moreover, Poa said the “the language of the Constitution is clear,” and only vacancies change the number of Senators referred to in its provision.

READ: Here’s what amici curiae say about the impeachment voting threshold

“The text states all members of the Senate; it does not say all members present; it does not say all members participating… Absence does not create a vacancy. Non-participation does not create a vacancy. Being detained because of criminal charges does not create a vacancy,” Poa cited.

He also mentioned the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, whose impeachment trial was in the presence of only 23 Senator-judges, but the voting threshold remained the same.

Poa added that the Senate impeachment court is a “court of records,” thereby absent Senators may refer to the transcripts, journals and even the stream of the trial itself to make their vote.

Should they feel incapable of rendering an impartial judgment, Poa reminded that abstention or inhibition are also options open to the Senator-judges.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“Circumstances change, political alliances shift, majorities come and go, but at the end of the day, the Constitution must remain. While we understand that with everything going on, some may say that is merely inconvenient, the Constitution is not tested merely when things are convenient. The Constitution is tested most when things are precisely inconvenient,” Poa also said. /jpv