Prosecution dismisses Sal Panelo's warning on impeachment vote threshold

Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.

The House prosecution panel brushed aside former presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo's claim that senator-judges who voted to change the basis for determining the threshold to convict Vice President Sara Duterte violated the Constitution.

Panelo, who served as chief presidential legal counsel to Duterte's father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, described the impeachment court's ruling as a tragedy.

“Ang ginawa nila ay talagang nakalulungkot at isang trahedya na nilabag nila ang Saligang Batas nang lantaran. Dahil hindi talaga sila maaaring bumoto sa isang isyu na ang utos ng Saligang Batas ay hindi na nila dapat pakialaman,” he told reporters.

(What they did is truly saddening and a tragedy — they blatantly violated the Constitution. They cannot vote on an issue where the Constitution dictates that they should no longer meddle.)

The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday voted to interpret the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote based on the number of senators who are “legally and factually capable of participating” in the impeachment proceedings.

The ruling effectively overturned presiding officer Senator-judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero's July 6 ruling that 16 votes, or two-thirds of all 24 senators, would be needed to convict Duterte.

Thirteen senator-judges voted in favor of a motion by Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo to reconsider Escudero's July 6 ruling, following the continued absence or inability of some senators to participate in the impeachment trial.

The vote came after the Senate impeachment court heard the views of four former justices of the Supreme Court who served as amici curiae, lengthy oral arguments from both the prosecution and defense, and probing questions from senator-judges on the constitutional basis for determining the two-thirds voting threshold.

Panelo also said that senator-judges who vote under the new formula could face criminal liability.

“Pag sila ay bumoto under a new threshold, which is violative of the Constitution, they open themselves to Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code under that provision. Ang sabi po doon, if you knowingly render an unjust judgment, you are criminally liable,” he said.

(If they vote under a new threshold, which is violative of the Constitution, they open themselves up to Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code. It says that if you knowingly render an unjust judgment, you are criminally liable.)

Panelo had previously argued that the impeachment court could not alter the constitutional requirement that two-thirds of all Senate members must concur in a conviction. He also warned that senator-judges could face legal challenges and possible criminal cases if they proceeded with changing the voting requirement.

However, private prosecutors Lorna Kapunan and Amando Ligutan appeared unfazed by Panelo's comments.