PAST statements in 2018, later recalled in recent years – which identified Hilario G. Davide Jr. as being with the “absolutist” pro-16ers — were based on “an entirely different set of circumstances.”
And the news media and social media reports about it were “intended to mislead
the public.”
Or so went the former Supreme Court chief justice’s explanation before the Senate impeachment court where Vice President Sara Duterte is
facing trial.
■ The Senate court will consider the present stance, not the 2018 supposed pronouncement, of Jun Davide (not Junjun, nickname of his former-Cebu-governor son). The stand is this …
Davide told the Senate court in a legal memorandum that the denominator should exclude senators suffering from incapacities, who are outside the country, in hiding or being detained on plunder or other
nonbailable charges.
Meaning, the requirement is not rigidly fixed at 16 votes out of 24.
■ With Davide’s changed or clarified stand on the voting number, what’s the consolation argument against it?
One argument, seemingly “consuwelo de bobo” (false comfort, mock consolation) and yet true on its face, is that Davide’s and the stance of his co-friends of the court
merely have “a persuasive influence” on the
Senate vote.
■ Did news media fumble, was social media being mean, or did Davide fail to communicate?
One or the other or both. When the former magistrate did the “16” math in 2018, regarding the impeachment trial of then-CJ Maria Lourdes Sereno, the Senate membership was complete, with no members detained, or out of the country.
Media, including non-journalist social media commenters, didn’t get it or deliberately took the wrong context to suit personal or partisan ends.
■ All told, in sum, what was the dominant view of the four amici curiae or “friends of the court”?
Three of four retired top magistrates who presented their “amicus curiae” opinion to the Senate impeachment court – Hilario Davide Jr., Artemio Panganiban, and Reynato Puno – “took different constitutional approaches” but shared the same stand: the required number of votes to convict could change, depending on which senators who’d be included in the count.
Former SC associate justice Adolfo Azcuna was the lone dissenter who said the threshold is “fixed, not variable” and all senators should remain part of the denominator.”
■ It’s 3-1 in favor of the variable denominator and against the fixed 16. Who wins?
Not yet. The issue will be debated on by prosecution and defense lawyers and the impeachment court will take a vote.
Even with a Senate-adopted voting threshold, the issue, along with related issues, may live on if the controversy is raised to and accepted by the Supreme Court.