There is an old joke that people go into journalism because they’re not good at math. I first heard it in college, and the stereotype persisted. But media institutes have long emphasized the importance for journalists to understand math and statistics to make sense of budgets, inflation rates, gross domestic product, and election results.
Now, add to that the impeachment vote.
The appearance of former Supreme Court justices before the impeachment court hearing the charges against Vice President Sara Duterte turned into a lesson in mathematics.
They appeared as amici curiae, or friends of the court, after the impeachment court asked them to interpret the Constitution on how many senators can vote. Retired Chief Justices Artemio Panganiban and Reynato Puno and retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna appeared personally. Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., a Cebuano, submitted a written memorandum.
Panganiban, Puno, and Davide said Wednesday that the two-thirds vote required to convict an impeached official should not necessarily be fixed at 16. Azcuna, however, gave a different view. He said the Constitution requires that no person be convicted in an impeachment case “without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.” With 24 Senate members, two-thirds would be 16.
Panganiban said that while two-thirds of 24 is always 16 “in the abstract,” reality can change the denominator. “What do our people expect from you? It’s not legalism, it’s not judicial conduct, it is justice for our people,” Panganiban said.
Puno pushed for a contextual and functional interpretation. Davide said the computation should be based on the number of senators qualified to vote. Those who cannot perform their constitutional duties should not be included in the denominator, he added.
Azcuna’s opposing position was that the threshold, the two-thirds of the Senate’s full membership, should not fluctuate based on attendance. Absence from some hearings should not automatically disqualify a senator-judge from voting because the trial records and evidence can still be reviewed. Whether an absent senator has participated sufficiently to render an impartial judgment is an internal matter that the Senate should decide “according to its
own wisdom.”
With these legal opinions, the focus should now be on the senator-judges. They decide first on the vote threshold. Then, they address how each of them will decide based on their wisdom (Azcuna) and the wish to give justice to the people (Panganiban).
Will the senators be able to set aside political pressure and alliances for the 2028 elections? Or has their decision already been made before all the evidence has been presented?
Whatever their aptitude for mathematics, the senator-judges have to face the harder calculation, one that involves not only numbers but also justice and accountability.
Yes, the Senate will have to decide on the threshold. Next, its members will have to face the harder responsibility of examining the evidence, ascertaining the truth, and voting according to their judgment. Math may determine the threshold, but it cannot replace justice.