SC petitions to impeachment vote rule a ‘litmus test’ — Adiong

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court challenges to the Senate impeachment court’s new voting rule will be a “litmus test” of how the Constitution’s accountability mechanism applies under unprecedented circumstances, trial spokesperson and Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said Saturday.

“It’s a litmus test because I believe the Constitution is very expressive, explicit on how we can actually act on accountability mechanism of the Constitution in running after those who are alleged to be violating or has already violated the Constitution,” Adiong said during the Saturday News Forum in Quezon City.

Adiong was responding to questions about petitions asking the Supreme Court to stop the Senate impeachment court from implementing its decision to abandon a fixed 16-vote threshold for the conviction of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Article continues after this advertisement

The impeachment court voted 13-1, with six senator-judges not participating, to apply the constitutionally required two-thirds vote to senators who are legally and factually capable of participating when judgment is rendered.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Adiong said the controversy presents a novel constitutional question because some sitting senators may be legally incapable of participating in the impeachment trial.

“This is the first time, actually, that an impeachment trial happens when there are few sitting senators who are legally incapable of attending an impeachment trial,” he said.

“And even the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate that such circumstance might happen,” he added.

Adiong cited interpretations offered by former Supreme Court justices invited by the impeachment court as amici curiae, or friends of the court, on how the constitutional phrase “two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate” should be applied.

Article continues after this advertisement

Retired Chief Justices Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno and Hilario Davide Jr. advanced interpretations under which senators legally or factually incapable of participating could be excluded from the voting base.

Retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna maintained that the denominator should remain the full 24-member Senate.

Article continues after this advertisement

Adiong also cited discussions surrounding the Supreme Court’s 1949 ruling in Avelino v. Cuenco, which dealt with the computation of a Senate quorum.

While acknowledging that the case involved a legislative function rather than the voting threshold in an impeachment trial, Adiong said its principles have been cited for their persuasive value in the current debate.

He said those questioning the Senate impeachment court’s ruling are free to seek the Supreme Court’s interpretation.

“Anybody can go to the Supreme Court because this is a free country,” Adiong said.

“What is so beautiful about our country is even if some entities are adversarial to their interest, but we always, always value other opinions, the vibrancy and the different interpretations and opinions in our country,” he added.

Adiong, however, said the constitutional controversy could be considered premature until the impeachment court actually votes on Duterte’s guilt or innocence.

“But I think the controversy, if you ask me, the controversy should begin when there is an actual voting when, for example, the Senate will reach its final verdict,” he said.

Still, Adiong said seeking an earlier resolution of the issue is within the petitioners’ prerogative.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“But again, that’s the prerogative,” he said. “And let’s see how the Supreme Court will respond.”