House to comply with SC order on impeachment vote threshold

MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives will comply with the order of the Supreme Court to comment on a petition challenging the validity of the Senate impeachment court’s ruling to lower the voting threshold to convict Vice President Sara Duterte.

House prosecution panel spokesman Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said they will comply with the order as the panel remained focused on presenting evidence against Duterte.

He said the high court’s request is only a routine court procedure but did not indicate a timeline on when the panel will submit its response.

“This is just the usual procedure that we expect the court to issue,” he said.

The SC also ordered the Senate to file a comment on the petition filed by Sens. Robin Padilla and Bong Go, staunch allies of Duterte, along with officials of the opposition party Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan, which sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a status quo ante order against the Sept. 23 decision of the impeachment court to lower the vote threshold.

The Senate voted to base the two-thirds vote to convict on the number of senators who are capable of “legally and factually participating in the impeachment proceedings.”

As a result, the vote threshold for the conviction of Duterte may move from 16 to 14 votes, considering that Sens. Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are detained on plunder charges, Sen. Loren Legarda has been on an extended medical leave abroad and Sen. Ronald dela Rosa has been in hiding since May.

“We respect the Supreme Court and we will comply with whatever the issuances from the Supreme Court would cover in relation to the petition filed by two sitting senator-judges,” Adiong said.

Asked whether the prosecution would reaffirm the Senate ruling, Adiong said determining the voting requirement was not the role of the prosecution.

“Our position is to present the evidence necessary to prove our case,” he said.

He said it was the impeachment court that determined how to apply the voting requirement and the prosecution’s responsibility was to support the remaining Article II (unexplained wealth) allegations with the records and testimony presented to the panel.

Adiong also pointed out that neither party had requested the ruling, placing responsibility for the procedural decision with the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

“Neither the prosecution nor the defense asked for it,” he said.