Ex-justices differ on conviction vote threshold in impeachment cases

MANILA — The Senate impeachment court heard conflicting legal opinions Wednesday on how to calculate the supermajority vote required to convict an impeached official, with three retired Supreme Court justices arguing the threshold should not necessarily be pegged at 16 votes.

The three former justices testified that the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority vote for conviction should be calculated differently than the commonly cited figure of 16 affirmative votes. Their position challenges the fixed-number interpretation that has guided previous impeachment proceedings in the chamber.

Retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, however, maintained that the Constitution mandates using the full membership of the Senate in determining the required supermajority threshold. His interpretation would result in the 16-vote requirement, a position that contrasts with the views expressed by his three former colleagues.

The dispute over the vote threshold carries significant implications for the impeachment process, as it could affect the difficulty of convicting high-ranking officials. The constitutional ambiguity on whether the calculation should be based on a fixed number or on the current Senate membership remains unresolved despite the testimony from the retired justices.

The Senate has not yet issued a final determination on which interpretation will apply to the ongoing impeachment proceedings.