*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
My simple answer is yes.
The Constitution does not specifically say that 16 votes are always required to convict an impeached official. Ang nakasulat ay “two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
Saan nanggaling ang number 16?
Simple computation lamang. Mayroong 24 senators, at ang two-thirds ng 24 ay 16. Ngunit ang 16 ay mathematical result lamang. Hindi ito permanenteng numerong tahasang isinulat sa Constitution.
Kung hindi lahat ng 24 senators ay legal at aktuwal na nakaganap bilang senator-judges, makatuwiran lamang na itanong: Dapat pa rin ba silang lahat isama sa denominator?
Isa lamang naman ang pangunahing issue rito: Are all 24 senator-judges sufficiently equipped to render a fair, objective, and informed judgment?
Kapag may impeachment trial, hindi lamang ordinaryong legislative session ang dinadaluhan ng mga senador. They sit as senator-judges. Ang kanilang desisyon ay maaaring magtanggal sa isang President, Vice President, Chief Justice, o ibang impeachable official na iniluklok sa tungkulin alinsunod sa Constitution.
Hindi maaaring nakabase lamang ang kanilang boto sa political affiliation, personal loyalty, public pressure, o instructions ng kanilang political group.
Justice must be based on the appreciation of facts and evidence.
Paano makapagbibigay ng fair judgment ang isang senator-judge na wala sa mahahalagang impeachment hearings? Paano niya maa-appreciate ang testimonya kung hindi niya narinig ang witness? Paano niya makikita ang kilos, reaksiyon, kumpiyansa, pag-aalinlangan, o consistency ng taong nagsasalita kung wala siya sa hearing?
Paano rin ang mga senator-judges na naka-leave?
Senators pa rin sila. Ngunit kung matagal silang wala at hindi nakadalo sa mahahalagang bahagi ng impeachment trial, paano natin masisiguro na sapat ang kanilang understanding and appreciation of the evidence? Makatarungan bang lumitaw sila sa final voting at magbigay ng verdict kung hindi naman nila nasundan ang proceedings?
Maaaring sabihin ng iba na mayroon namang internet, recordings, transcripts, at online technology. Maaari nilang panoorin ang hearings at basahin ang complete official records. Totoo iyon. Malaking tulong ang technology para makahabol ang isang senator-judge na may valid reason for being absent.
Ngunit iba pa rin ang actual presence during the presentation and examination of evidence.
Iba ang personal mong naririnig ang witness habang sumasagot. Iba ang nakikita mo ang kanyang facial expression, body language, hesitation, at paraan ng pagsagot sa cross-examination. Iba rin ang naririnig mo mismo ang objections, explanations, at arguments ng prosecution at defense habang nangyayari ang hearing.
May mga bagay na mababasa sa transcript. Ngunit may mga bagay ding higit na mauunawaan kapag personal mong nasaksihan ang kabuuan ng proceedings.
At kahit sabihin nating maaaring dumalo online, dapat munang malinaw kung kinikilala ng impeachment rules ang online attendance bilang formal participation ng isang senator-judge. Hindi maaaring basta ipagpalagay na ang panonood mula sa malayo ay awtomatikong katumbas ng official attendance, participation, at performance of constitutional duty.
Hindi rin sapat na sabihin nilang nabasa naman nila ang balita. News reports are not the official evidence. Hindi rin sapat ang social media videos, political commentaries, press releases, o statements ng kanilang partido.
A senator-judge must examine the official records and appreciate the evidence independently.
Imagine an RTC judge who was absent throughout the important hearings of a murder case. Hindi niya personal na narinig ang witnesses. Hindi niya nakita kung paano sinagot ng accused ang allegations. Hindi niya nasaksihan ang presentation, examination, at testing of evidence.
Pagkatapos, bigla siyang lumitaw at nagpataw ng guilty verdict carrying life imprisonment.
Ano ang magiging impression ng ordinaryong mamamayan sa justice system? Ano ang magiging tingin natin sa judge? At paano lubos na magtitiwala ang publiko sa isang desisyong ginawa ng taong hindi nila nakitang nakinig at sumuri sa kasong kanyang hinatulan?
The RTC example is an analogy. Ang impeachment court ay hindi ordinaryong Regional Trial Court, at ang senator-judges ay hindi kapareho sa lahat ng aspeto ng regular judges. Ngunit iisa ang moral foundation ng kanilang tungkulin: No one should render judgment without seriously examining the facts and evidence.
Hindi natin sinasabing awtomatikong invalid ang desisyon ng isang senator-judge na hindi nakadalo sa bawat hearing. May mga pagkakataong maaaring pag-aralan ang complete records at makagawa pa rin ng informed decision.
Ngunit ibang usapan ang paminsang valid absence at ang substantial or total nonparticipation.
Ang senator-judge na lumiban sa isang hearing ngunit kumpletong nag-review ng transcripts, recordings, exhibits, at official records ay hindi kapareho ng senator-judge na halos wala sa buong proseso, hindi nakinig, hindi nagbasa, at hindi nagsuri ng ebidensiya.
Kaya kailangan ng Senate na tingnan hindi lamang ang pangalan ng 24 senators, kundi ang kanilang legal capacity and meaningful participation as senator-judges.
Kung lahat ng 24 ay legal na maaaring bumoto at meaningfully participated, sa pamamagitan man ng actual attendance o isang demonstrable review of the complete official record, then 16 votes should remain the requirement.
Ngunit kung may mga senador na legal o aktuwal na hindi maaaring gumanap at bumoto bilang senator-judges, may makatuwirang dahilan upang i-recompute ang numerical requirement.
Hindi binabago ng Senate ang two-thirds requirement. Ina-apply lamang nito ang constitutional fraction sa wastong bilang ng mga senator-judges na tunay na maaaring humatol.
The Constitution requires two-thirds. It does not expressly say 16 under every imaginable circumstance.
Ito rin ang dahilan kung bakit nagkakaiba ang naging pananaw ng apat na retired Supreme Court justices. Retired Chief Justices Hilario Davide Jr., Artemio Panganiban, and Reynato Puno generally recognized that the required number could change depending on who should legally be counted in the denominator. Retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, on the other hand, maintained that all 24 sitting senators should be counted and that the threshold should remain fixed at 16.
Pare-pareho silang naging miyembro ng pinakamataas na hukuman ng bansa. Pare-pareho nilang binasa ang Constitution. Pare-pareho silang may malalim na kaalaman at mahabang karanasan sa batas.
Yet they arrived at different conclusions.
I must therefore make one thing clear: I am not a lawyer, and I do not pretend to possess the final or binding interpretation of the Constitution.
But the Constitution is not the exclusive property of lawyers.
It was written not only for members of the Bar, judges, and legal scholars, but for the Filipino people whose rights, institutions, and government it protects. Every citizen has the right to read it, study it, question its application, and participate in an informed discussion about its meaning.
Lawyers and former Supreme Court justices possess legal training and experience that deserve our respect. But no lawyer, retired justice, or individual legal expert has a monopoly on the correct interpretation of the Constitution.
The disagreement among the four retired justices itself proves this point. They examined the same constitutional provision, studied the same words, and applied their legal knowledge, yet they reached different conclusions.
Kung iisa lamang ang possible interpretation, bakit nagkakaiba ang kanilang mga opinyon?
Even members of the Supreme Court frequently disagree. That is why there are majority opinions, concurring opinions, and dissenting opinions. The existence of disagreement does not necessarily mean that one side is dishonest, incompetent, or politically motivated. It means that constitutional language may be examined through different legal, historical, mathematical, and practical perspectives.
Of course, when an actual constitutional controversy reaches the Supreme Court, its majority ruling becomes legally controlling unless subsequently modified or overturned. But that does not remove the right of citizens, researchers, academics, and public officials to examine and discuss the reasoning behind that interpretation.
My position is not presented as legal advice or as an infallible declaration of what the Constitution means. It is an analysis based on the constitutional text, available facts, research, logic, and the practical demands of justice.
Hindi ko inaangkin na ako lamang ang tama. Ang hinihingi ko lamang ay huwag nating isara ang constitutional discussion dahil hindi abogado ang isang nagtatanong.
A legal title may establish professional qualification, but it does not automatically make every interpretation unquestionable. In the same way, the absence of that title does not automatically make a fact-based and well-researched analysis worthless.
The Constitution belongs to the Filipino people. Lawyers may guide us in understanding it, courts may issue binding interpretations, and scholars may deepen the discussion, but every Filipino has the right to ask whether its application remains faithful to justice, reason, and democracy.
Kaya maaaring bumuo ang Senate ng reasonable numerical formula. Ngunit dapat nakabatay ito sa isang malinaw na prinsipyo: Only senator-judges who are legally capable of voting and who have meaningfully participated, either through actual attendance or a demonstrable review of the complete official record, should be considered in determining the proper voting base.
Hindi ito tungkol sa pagpapadali ng conviction. Hindi rin ito tungkol sa pagpapabor sa prosecution o defense. It is about protecting the integrity and credibility of the judgment.
Because the most important question is not simply, “How many senators voted?”
The more important question is, “Did those who rendered judgment truly hear, understand, and appreciate the facts and evidence?”
Sa impeachment, hindi sapat na may boto. Kailangang may pinagbatayang ebidensiya ang boto. Hindi sapat na may desisyon. Kailangang ang nagdesisyon ay tunay na nakinig, nag-aral, at umunawa.
Kung hindi, maaaring kumpleto ang numero, ngunit kulang naman ang hustisya.
Dear Reader,
I invite you to explore my complete collection of published books now available on Amazon. Whether you are seeking in-depth analysis, strategic insights, or engaging narratives, my catalog covers a range of essential topics designed to inform, inspire, and provoke thoughtful discussion.
You can browse all my current titles, read excerpts, and order your copies directly through my official Amazon Author Page:
Click this Image to View:
Warm regards,
*About the author:
