CIVIC leaders and lawyers from the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (Barmm) and Davao City have asked the Supreme Court to stop the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, challenging the impeachment court’s decision to base the number of votes needed for conviction on senators considered able to participate in the proceedings.
In a Second Urgent Supplemental Petition dated Sept. 26, the petitioners asked the Supreme Court en banc to issue an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) against the House prosecution panel and the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
The petition challenges the Sept. 23 vote in which the impeachment court voted 13-1 to adopt a new basis for computing the two-thirds vote required for conviction. Six senators did not participate in the vote.
The petitioners argue that Article XI, Section 3(6) of the 1987 Constitution requires the two-thirds vote to be based on all 24 members of the Senate, which would require 16 votes for conviction.
Under the new rule, however, the computation considers only senators who remain “legally and factually capable of participating,” according to the petition. The petitioners said this reduced the voting pool to 20 and the required number of votes to 14.
Petition challenges voting denominator
The petitioners identified four senators they said were excluded from the computation: Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, who are detained; Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, whose whereabouts the petition describes as unknown; and Loren Legarda, who is on leave.
With the four excluded, the petitioners said the voting pool fell from 24 to 20, resulting in a 14-vote threshold under the two-thirds computation.
The petitioners described the change as an alleged attack on the constitutional requirement and argued that the new rule, which applies "pro hac vice" or only to the current case, improperly changes the constitutional basis for determining the votes needed for conviction.
Petition alleges pressure on minority senators
The petitioners also alleged that the change in the voting denominator resulted from what they characterized as a pattern of pressure on minority senators.
They cited Sen. Mark Villar’s move to the majority bloc, which they said came five days after the Ombudsman filed administrative and criminal complaints involving the Villar family over PrimeWater utility deals.
The petitioners also alleged that police blocked Sen. Pia Cayetano from attending a Senate session and that the National Bureau of Investigation and the Office of the Ombudsman publicly discussed alleged plunder cases involving independent senator-judges.
They characterized these developments as pressure against minority senators and argued that they interfered with the impeachment process.
The petitioners further argued that allowing the voting denominator to change based on senators’ ability to participate could allow the executive branch to reduce the number of votes needed for conviction.
“To hold that the denominator can be dynamically shrunken based on state-manufactured availability permits the Executive branch to jail its way to a lower conviction threshold,” the petition states.
The petition attributes a related concern to former Supreme Court Justice Adolfo Azcuna, whom it identifies as an "amicus curiae", or friend of the court.
The allegations are contained in the petition and have not been established by the Supreme Court.
Petition invokes Galman ruling
The petitioners, represented by lawyers led by Atty. Oscar Gerard C. Breva and collaborating counsel Atty. Sherwin Ma. V.C. Quilatan, also cited the Supreme Court’s 1986 ruling in Galman v. Sandiganbayan.
They invoked then-Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee’s warning against allowing a “sham trial and travesty of justice” to stand uncorrected.
The petitioners argued that the case supports their plea for Supreme Court intervention in what they described as a constitutional issue of transcendental public concern.
They also challenged other aspects of the impeachment case, including the alleged violation of the one-year bar rule and what they claimed were defects in the House of Representatives’ signing, verification, and submission of the Articles of Impeachment.
Petitioners seek TRO, dismissal
The petitioners asked the Supreme Court en banc to issue an ex parte TRO stopping the House prosecution panel and Senate impeachment court from proceeding with the trial; declare the Sept. 23 Senate voting results null and void; and dismiss the impeachment case based on the constitutional and jurisdictional issues raised in the petition.
The petitioners include Barmm civic leaders Sahabodin A. Mansag, Mike P. Bacilon, Muhaiden M. Bayan, Sahabudin A. Alonto and Mohalidin D. Saban, organizers of the Bangsamoro Alliance for Inday (BAI), and Davao City lawyers Breva, Roberto Mauro Miguel T. Palma Gil, Jaime G. Pineda, Maria Carmen Victoria M. Estepa and Mateo B. Ty. GRS
