By Rogelio V. Amante, petitioner and Cebu taxpayer
(Editor’s Note: This press release was revised into a first-person narrative)
As the leader of TEAM YOU – PARALEGAL PRO BONO, representing a group of Cebu taxpayers and citizen-petitioners, I am currently preparing a verified petition to the Supreme Court (SC) questioning the constitutional validity of the voting formula adopted by the Senate Impeachment Court on Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2026.
We are not asking the SC to determine the guilt or innocence of the impeached official. Instead, we are raising a narrower, more fundamental constitutional question: Can the Senate, through an internal parliamentary ruling, alter the constitutional denominator in Article XI, Section 3(6), which expressly requires the concurrence of “two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate” for a conviction?
Our contention is that the Constitution itself — not an ordinary parliamentary ruling — must dictate this threshold. The reported 13–1 vote on Sept. 23 was a vote concerning the computation of the threshold, not a 13-vote conviction. Because certain senator-judges were excluded from the denominator, reports indicate that the Senate’s new formula results in a 14-vote threshold. Ultimately, the core issue is not whether the required number is 13, 14, or 16, but whether the phrase “all the Members of the Senate” can be constitutionally redefined by the Senate to mean only those Members it considers capable of participating.
To challenge this, our petition invokes Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the expanded power to determine whether any branch of government has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. We are also relying on recent 2025 SC jurisprudence, which established that while Congress holds the power of impeachment, that power remains subject to constitutional boundaries and judicial review when grave abuse is properly alleged.
This is about the constitutional rule, not the political outcome. Our position is not about choosing a winner or loser in these proceedings; it is about ensuring the Constitution remains the controlling law. While we recognize that the Senate possesses broad constitutional authority to try and decide impeachment cases, this authority must be exercised within the express limits of the Constitution. Senate rules may implement procedures, but they cannot amend an express supermajority requirement.
Our contemplated petition will seek the following from the SC:
Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65.
Judicial review of the Senate Impeachment Court action taken on Sept. 23, 2026.
A definitive ruling on whether the new voting formula is consistent with Article XI, Section 3(6).
Appropriate injunctive relief, provided we establish the constitutional requirements for it.
Such other relief as the Court may deem proper.
We are not asking the Judiciary to conduct the impeachment trial or to substitute its judgment for that of the Senate Impeachment Court. We ask only that the constitutional boundaries governing the Senate’s exercise of its power be judicially determined.
This controversy extends far beyond the immediate impeachment proceeding. If left unchecked, the Senate’s interpretation could establish a dangerous precedent for how future constitutional supermajority requirements are calculated. For us, the central principle is simple: The Constitution grants power, but it also limits power. Neither Congress nor the Senate may exercise authority beyond the constitutional terms by which it was granted, and we intend to place this matter before the SC to ensure those terms are upheld.
