September 16, 2026

The sergeant at arms is directed to make a proclamation.

All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the impeachment court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hereby called to order.

We shall be— Let's

pause for a minute of silent prayer.

Amen. The Clerk of Court will now call the roll.

Roll call of members. Senator Judge Aquino. Senator Judge Cayetano Allan. Senator Judge Cayetano Pia. Senator Judge De La Rosa. Senator Judge Ejercito. Senator Judge Estrada. Sen. Judge Goh, Sen. Judge Ontiveros, Sen. Judge Lacson, Sen. Judge Lapid, Sen. Judge Legarda, Sen. Judge Marcoleta, Sen. Judge Marcos, Sen. Judge Padilla, Sen. Judge Pangilinan, Sen. Judge Soto III, Sen. Judge Tulfo Erwin, Sen. Judge Tulfo Rafi, Sen. Judge Villanueva, Sen. Judge Villar Camil Senator-Judge, Villar, Mark, Senator-Judge, Zubiri, the Presiding Officer, Senator-Judge, Escudero, the Senate President, Senator-Judge, Gachalian. With

17 Senator-Judges present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum. In accordance with the rules of procedure on impeachment trials, the Chair now recognizes the duly elected Presiding Officer to preside over the proceedings of the Impeachment Court.

If there are no objections, we shall dispense with the reading of the September 15, 2026 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, and consider the same as approved.

The Clerk of Court will please call the case before the impeachment court.

Case number 004-2026, the matter of impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

Appearances of the parties.

Appearances, Honorable Diokno.

Good morning, Your Honors. Same appearance for the prosecution.

Good morning, Your Honors. Same appearance for the respondent accused.

Good morning, Councils. Today, as you were informed, we will not be having a trial. Instead, we shall hear from the Friends of the Court. The Court today will hear from our Amici Curie who were appointed pursuant to the Court's Orders dated September 9 and 10, and shall proceed with their presentation in accordance with the Court's Advisory dated September 9, 2026. The selection of the Amici Curie was done in consultation with the parties and senator-judges as well. The Court, through the Presiding Officer, has enlisted the assistance of the following distinguished Amici Curie to aid the Court in its resolution of questions concerning the proper interpretation and application of Article 11, Section 3 of the Constitution, namely, Retired Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., Retired Former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, retired former Chief Justice Renato Espuno, and retired Associate Justice Adolph S. Ascuna. Retired Chief Justice Davide, however, has submitted his views in a written memorandum, copies of which were distributed to Senator, Judges, and the Parties, and the Court will ask to be read before we hear from the Amici Curiae present this morning. The Amici Curiae have been invited to assist the Court in its consideration of the following issues raised in the appeal cum motion for reconsideration of Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo. Namely, 1. Whether the phrase, all the members of the Senate, in Article 11, Section 3-6 of the Constitution should refer to the Senate's full membership of 24 Senators or only those who are legally and physically capacitated to participate and vote on the final question in an impeachment trial. 2. Whether or not the case of Jose Avellino v. Mariano Cuenco dated 1949, particularly its treatment of members beyond the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate, applies in determining whether senators who are detained, abroad, suspended, or whose whereabouts are unknown are included in the phrase, quote, all members of the Senate for purposes of the two-thirds vote required under Article 11, Section 3-6 of the Constitution. And number three, Whether or not a Senator-Judge who did not attend or substantially participate in the impeachment proceedings as to, among others, propound questions and to observe the demeanor of witnesses may nevertheless validly cast a vote on the final question in an impeachment trial. On behalf of the Court, the Presiding Officer wishes to express our deep appreciation to the Amici Curie for accepting our invitation and for generously lending their time, expertise, Wisdom and considered judgment to the resolution of these important questions that the court is facing. Consistent with the advisory issued, each amicus curiae shall make a presentation with respect to their position on the matter. Thereafter, interjections and their questions will be entertained from senator-judges who shall have five minutes each for all Not for a single one but for all three. And the chair shall also entertain questions through the chair from the parties should they have any to our respective amicus curiae.

Before the court hears from the amici curiae who are present and in person, the court hereby directs the Clerk of Court to read for the record and for the information of the amici curiae present, the senator-judges, and the public as well, the position via memorandum of former Chief Justice Davide, who cannot join us this morning given a procedure that he underwent, I believe, only recently. The

chair hereby instructs the Clerk of Court To kindly read only a synopsis of the memorandum submitted by former Chief Justice Davide, given that copies have been distributed to the parties already, to the Senator-Judges, as well as posted in the website of the Impeachment Court. The Clerk of Court may proceed to read.

Good morning, Your Honor. We won't like to interrupt the court, Your Honor, but before the Clerk of Court reads the memorandum of opinion, may we ask that Attorney Michael Poa be recognized for a short manifestation, Your Honor. We promise this will just be quick.

Yes, what is the pleasure of Attorney Poa? Counsel for the respondent.

Good

morning, Mr. Presiding Officer, Honorable Senator, Judges. Good morning, Attorney Poa. Just a quick manifestation. You may proceed, sir. Of course, this is with all respect to the impeachment court, but the defense would like to put on record that our participation in this proceeding as well as the subsequent proceeding on the oral arguments shall be made ad cautelum, Your Honors, as the result of these proceedings on the said issue may affect the rights of our client, Your Honor.

Julie noted, and you can avail of whatever legal remedies you may have and are well within your rights to do so at the proper time.

Thank you, Your Honor. Just for the record, thank you.

Duly noted. The Clerk will please proceed with the reading of the synopsis of the position cum memorandum of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.

Synopsis of the memorandum of retired Chief Justice Hilary Davido Jr. Number 1. Whether the phrase, all the members of the Senate in Article 11, Section 3-6 of the Constitution, should refer to the Senate's full membership of 24 senators or only to those who are legally and physically capacitated to participate and vote on the final question in an impeachment trial. I was one of the delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention which drafted the 1973 Constitution and one of the commissioners of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 which drafted the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. There was no debate on this subject during the deliberations in both the 1973 Convention and the Constitutional Commission of 1986. It was presumed and assumed that when the Constitution mentioned two-thirds of all the members of the Batasan Pambansa in the 1973 Constitution and of the Senate in the 1987 Constitution, or three-fourths of all the members of the Senate in the 1935 Constitution, the word members refers to Living persons who are not suffering from any mental, physical, or health conditions, which render them incapable of exercising their powers or performing their duties as senators, or who are prohibited to do so by reason of some legal restraints or impediments. This is the spirit of the provision. It could not be otherwise. Any interpretation to the contrary will defy reason, logic, and common sense. tolerate an absurdity and perpetuate an injustice. The framers of the constitutions of 1935, 1973, and 1987 could never have intended to include in all members, senators in a given Congress the following. Number one, those who have resigned or have been expelled. Number two, those who suffer from any mental infirmity as for instance those in any state of insanity or who are suffering from Alzheimer. 3. Those who are suffering from any physical incapacity, such as the deaf and the dumb, the blind, or those in hospitals or at home suffering from terminal cancer, or are in comatose condition or under trichotomy. 4. Those who cannot participate in the hearings and deliberations on the impeachment, such as those who are outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines, or whose whereabouts are unknown or in hiding to avoid arrest.

Those who, by reason of some legal impediments or restraints, cannot exercise or perform their rights and privileges as a public official or, more specifically, as a senator. The last group include those who are charged in court for plunder, defined and penalized by RA 7080, approved on July 12, 1991, and for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, RA 3019. and those who are facing criminal charges in court or have been convicted and are serving their sentence. We also have decisions of the Supreme Court which clearly decreed that public officers facing criminal cases in court cannot, during the pendency of their cases, practice their profession nor hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. Clearly then, the basis of computing The two-thirds must be the number of senators who are qualified to vote, not the 24 in the present Senate. All those disqualified by reason of causes earlier mentioned should not be included. Number two, whether or not the case of Jose Avellino v. Arianna Cuenco , particularly its treatment of members beyond the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate, applies in determining whether senators who are detained, abroad, suspended, or whose whereabouts are unknown, are included in the phrase, all the members of the Senate, for purposes of the two-thirds vote required under Article 11, Section 3 of the Constitution. The primary question that confronts us in this issue is whether the decision in Avellino v. Cuenco is applicable in impeachment cases. The undersigned respectfully submits that it is not directly applicable in impeachment cases. However, by analogy, it may only provide some guiding light. It was a divided Supreme Court of 11 members, a Chief Justice and 10 Associate Justices, Section 4, Article 8, 1935 Constitution. The matter in issue in this Avellino v. Cuenco case was purely relative to the determination of quorum in a Senate exclusively acting as a legislative body and performing exclusively legislative functions and not as an impeachment court. At the session of the Senate on February 21, 1949, Senators Soto and Confessor were absent. The first was confined in a hospital and the second was in the United States. Effectively then, there were only 22 senators. A majority of the 22 senators would only be 12. Respondent Cuenco was elected by 12. May this decision in Avellino v. Cuenco be applied in Senate acting as an impeachment court. The impeachment court can consider this as having persuasive value. Nevertheless, in light of the disquisitions above on the first issue, we can now conclude that those who are detained abroad suspended or whose whereabouts are unknown cannot be included or must be excluded from the phrase all members of the Senate. Number three, whether or not a senator or judge who did not attend or substantially participate in the impeachment proceedings as to among others propound questions to and observe the demeanor of witnesses may nevertheless validly cast a vote on the final question in an impeachment trial. This issue is not easy to answer. Nevertheless, the undersigned will do so with a preliminary statement that Senators now address as judges in impeachment case are in conscience duty bound to think, believe, act, and behave as judges in contemplation of the Constitution. They are thus to have their favor the presumption that they possess or must possess the virtues of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. These are what the Constitution requires of a justice or judge under Section 7, Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of our Constitution. Each must, as well, be guided by the oath of office he or she took as a senator or judge. Accordingly, a senator or judge who did not attend any session of the court for any reason whatsoever, or who never acted or performed the duties as a senator or judge, must be deemed to have never participated in the performance of the duties as such. You should belong to the category of those who are outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines, or in a foreign country, or one whose whereabouts are unknown. As to those who did not substantially participate in the impeachment proceedings, the undersigned leaves this matter to the conscience and sense of duty to those involved. They must never forget that they are public officials who are solemnly bound to observe and practice Section 1 of Article 11 of the Constitution on Accountability of Public Officers. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. I wish to underscore, however, that failure to ask questions on the witness is not proof of non-participation. As judges, they should refrain from asking questions except to clarify a point. Judges are to be present at all times and to listen to and reflect on the testimonies of witnesses. End of the synopsis.

We thank the former Chief Justice. The Chair now goes to the amici curiae who are present here this morning and, with the permission of our esteemed former Chief Justices and Justice of the Supreme Court, may we recognize them in the order of their seniority in the Court. With your permission, former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, may we recognize you first? You may speak from where you're seated, or you can use any of the two rostrums at your left or at your right, at your convenience, sir.

Your Honors, Senate President Sherwin Kachalyan, Presiding Officer Francis Escudero, and esteemed Senator Judges, may please The Honorable Senate in performing its constitutional duty and power to try and decide impeachment cases. Thank you for inviting this humble retired Chief Justice as amicus curiae. Thank you too for allowing me to speak first to enable me to attend. This afternoon's award ceremony of the Foundation for Liberty and Prosperity, where 20 exemplary law scholars will be granted 250,000 each, five MBA fellows will be granted 500,000 each, and five dissertation writing contest winners will be conferred more than 1.3 million pesos in prizes. In fact, Your Honors, assisting me today are the past recipients of these FLP awards, Harvim Cortes at my back, Rachel Helia, and Jacob Barbosa.

Since I will be, I will submit a copy of my written brief to you, Your Honors, and together with my column on the, in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 17, 2026.

Titled, Two-thirds. I will confine my remarks today to only four points.

Point one. As is generally known, an impeachment trial in the Senate is sui generis, Latin words that mean of its own kind or unique. It has both legal and political connotations. Pursuant to its legal character, the honorable senators conduct the trial in accordance with the law and evidence and the rules of court. Witnesses are examined by eagle-eyed lawyers ready to overwhelm them. Our people see senators garbed in their majestic crimson robes, lawyers arguing as if they were in a judicial courtroom.

Politically, on the other hand, decomposition is not confined to lawyers or jurists. Rather, its membership is open to elected political leaders who need not obtain formal legal education, need not pass the excruciating bar examination. and need not be scrutinized by the Judicial and Bar Council. Your honors are not sitting here as justices or lawyers. Truly, the Constitution does not require you to be lawyers or jurists. Neither are your honors expected to act like jurists or lawyers.

Notably, senators in the United States of America Trying impeachment cases do not ape judges. They do not even wear judicial robes. Instead, they are garbed in their normal attire. But in this hall, you have deemed it necessary and proper that you are garbed in judicial robes. That's why, in my case, I want to honor also this honorable court by being garbed in my judicial robe. Point 2. The Constitution, as has been stated by the Honorable Presiding Officer, states, and I quote, The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senator shall be on oath or affirmation, which you already have done. And then critically, no person shall be convicted. without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. How do judges and justices interpret the provisions of the Constitution and for that matter of laws? There are two major ways or methods. The first method is called verba legis. Words are plainly read and given their ordinary meanings. In such cases, there is, to quote the Supreme Court of the Philippines, no need for interpretation but only application of the provisions. The Senate, as we all know, has 24 members under the Constitution. Two-thirds of 24 is mathematically 16. Therefore, 16 votes are necessary to convict if we must use mathematics. Indeed, mathematics, your honors, is an exact science in the abstract. To repeat, in the abstract. Why? Because 2 plus 2 is always 4 in the abstract. 3 plus 3 equals 6. 2 times 10 equals Always 20. Therefore, 24 multiplied by two-thirds is always 16 in the abstract.

But not always in reality. There's a difference between abstraction and reality. For example, Your Honors, very simple. One small drop of water when put together with another small drop of water may

become one bigger drop of water. So in reality, it is one big drop of water.

Reality sometimes, Your Honors, changes the denominator in mathematics. In the same way, constitutional interpretation cannot always stop at abstract mathematics. We must look at the intent and the purpose of constitutional provisions, the circumstances in which they operate, and the goals they seek to achieve. Which brings us to the second method of interpretation, the ratio legis est anima, or to quote the Supreme Court, the reason of the law is the soul of the law. The text must be understood within its constitutional ambiance.

To

shorten my presentation, as we have time limits, I will leave it to my more learned retired colleagues here present the jurisprudence on these two ways of interpretation. However, Your Honors, I have included in the footnotes of my presentation the jurisprudence beginning with the 1924 case of Fuentes versus Director of Prisons, and the often-quoted 1949 case of Abelino versus Cuenco, which is only the second, not the first, Your Honor, on this issue. Although in the case of Fuentes, this was decided prior to the Constitution, but under the Jones law, which was the Enabling Act. of the Philippines at that time in 1924.

From the case of Abelino versus Cuenco, there are several other cases up to the 2026 case of Generillo versus Senate, with which your honors must be familiar since it also involved the present Senate and the present Vice President. Relevantly, your honors may ask. Should the interpretation of the drafters of the Constitution prevail? With due respect, not necessarily.

In our Constitutional allocation and separation of powers and the principle of checks and balances, the makers of the law are not the final authorities on interpretation. That delicate task is lodged in an independent branch of government, the judiciary, and in the present case, the honorable Senate.

Point 3. Which of the two modes of interpretation should the Senate use in discharging its constitutional duty to try and decide impeachment cases? I respectfully submit your honors that it is neither. Repeat. Neither of the two. Why? Because, as I already said, senators are not jurists. They're not even lawyers. Some of you may be lawyers, but you're not called here to decide as lawyers. You're called upon by the Constitution to decide as lawmakers.

In fact, Your Honors, you need not even use language or methods of magistrates with your respect. You were elected

As representatives at large of the entire electorate, you

are the co-equals of the justices of the Supreme Court. So how then should the Constitution be interpreted by the honorable senators? In my humble opinion, in accordance with their mandate as representatives of the people, especially reflecting the common sense of the people guided by two Fundamental standards, namely truth and fairness. Truth and fairness. The standard of truth is called from facts extracted, one, from studying and verifying the documents and papers submitted by the parties, and two, from hearing witnesses and observing their demeanor on the stand in front of you.

The tweets of their eyes, their body language, the tone of their voices, and the spontaneity of their answers. By watching and listening to them face to face, your honors would know whether the witnesses are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Fairness, on the other hand, demands that we hear before we condemn and that all sides are given the opportunity to explain their language and actions. It is what lawyers call due process and what ordinary people believe as fairness. As the Greek philosopher Themistocles, who was not a lawyer,

once said, and I quote, Strike me as you may, but hear me first. Truly, I respectfully submit that active participation and independent evaluation of the evidence are essential to discharge the Senate's and the Senator's constitutional responsibility.

Appealable to the Supreme Court?

My respectful answer is a big no. Because there is no constitutional provision allowing such an appeal. The Senate's decision is final and unappealable. The only way by which the court can review a Senate decision or order is when the Senate commits grave abuse of discretion. Repeat. Not just ordinary abuse of discretion, but grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion, Your Honors, is not defined by the Constitution, but jurisprudence characterizes it as, if I may quote, capricious or whimsical or arbitrary exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

In simpler terms, the court does not review the Senate's judgment merely because the court disagrees with the judgment, merely because the court disagrees with the wisdom of the judgment. No, judicial review arises only when the Senate exercises its power in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner. thereby going beyond the limits of its constitutional authority.

Thus the Senate must hear the prosecution and the defense witnesses as it already does, allow their counsels to argue verbally and in writing, and study their presentations deeply. Only thereafter should it issue its orders and decisions. In this connection, Is it truthful and fair to allow senators to cast their votes despite being absent from the proceedings? Is it fair and truthful should the senators be allowed to vote though they were there in hiding, abroad, legally detained, sick, hospitalized, or otherwise absent and have not been able to access and examine the documents, have not heard The testimonies and have not observed the demeanor of the witnesses? To put it more picturesquely, Your Honor, is it truthful and fair to the parties, to our country, and to our people to allow those abroad,

those

looking at the pyramids along the Nile, or shopping in the fashion houses of Paris? or riding the romantic gondolas of Venice or deliberately hiding in the dark corners of the world while everyone here, everyone here in this hall is sweating it out, listening to sometimes irrelevant and loquacious lawyers or to humble an ancient amicus curiae like me. To conclude, Your Honors, may I say that You are tasked with a constitutional duty that cannot always be reduced to abstract arithmetic. Neither can

such duty be performed in the shadows of absence, nor from legal impediments. As the elected representatives of the Filipino people, your honor's mandate, in my humble opinion, demands a commonsensical Common-sensical interpretation of the Constitution. Indeed, meaningful adjudication requires active participation in the search for truth and fairness. I respectfully submit that only in this manner can your Honors ensure a verdict that is fair to the parties, fair to your Honors' peers, and ultimately Fair to our Sovereign People. Thank

Maraming salamat po muli sa inyong paanyaya at masusing pakikinig sa inyong abang lingkod. Maraming salamat po.

very much.

Thank you

very much, Chief Justice Panganiban. We wholeheartedly welcome you.

Our gratitude is not only for this law but also for your patience, time, wisdom, and experience. Thank you, sir.

May we now recognize former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.

You may take the rostrum at your convenience, CJ Puno, and may proceed when you're ready.

May it please the Senate Impeachment Court.

I thank Your Honors for the invitation to speak before you.

I humbly apologize for not preparing a PowerPoint presentation. I was able to write out my thoughts on the issues confronting us only late last night. I will be happy however.

To submit a more extended, ambiguous brief, if required by your honors.

Before

expressing my view on the proper interpretation of Article 11, Section 3-6 of the 1987 Constitution.

Let me address a vital issue raised

by even some members of this court.

The question is asked whether this impeachment court has any power to interpret the meaning of that sentence, no person. shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.

My respectful submission, Your Honors, is that the Senate, as an impeachment court, possesses the power to interpret the meaning and nuances of that sentence.

That power is derived from Articles 11, Section 36 of the Constitution itself, which expressly provides the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases involving impeachment. Please

note The use of the word soul, which means the only body that can try and decide all cases involving impeachment. The

sole power to try and decide necessarily includes the lesser power to promulgate the rules that will govern the trial. and decision of impeachment cases. The

objection is made that given that power to interpret,

the senator-judges may change the literal meaning of the number of judges that can convict and therefore violate the Constitution.

Again, with due respect.

The literal interpretation of the threshold number of votes to convict is just one school of interpretation that follows the principle verba legis non es residentum meaning from the words of the law there

shall be no But,

Your Honors, there is another school of thought that follows a different approach when interpreting a constitutional provision. The

proponents of this school of thought adopt the contextual approach or the holistic approach.

which requires the interpretation

Next,

Your Honors, let me address the thesis that

the Supreme Court alone has the power to interpret Article 11, Section 36 of the Constitution.

Again, this thought requires a proper understanding of the Constitutional provisions giving the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. The

power granted to the Senate Impeachment Court by the Constitution is judicial power, the power to adjudicate,

the

power to decide cases.

In discharging this judicial power, the Senate Impeachment Court is not under the Supreme Court.

The Senator-Judge's are not like the judges of the regular courts of law who are all under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

It is for this reason, Your Honors, that the Senate Impeachment Court was granted judicial power under Article 11, Section 36 of the Constitution entitled Accountability of Public Officers Its

judicial power was not granted under Article 7 of the Constitution entitled Judicial Department Article

7 entitled Judicial Department contains an exhaustive discussion of the powers of the Supreme Court.

Nowhere does it explicitly appear in Article 7 that the Supreme Court can review the rules of the Senate Impeachment Court.

Nowhere does it appear in Article 7.

The Supreme Court can review how the Senate should conduct its trial.

Nowhere does it appear in Article 7 that the Supreme Court can review the evidence of the parties given in the impeachment court.

Nowhere does it appear in Article 7 that the Supreme Court can review How the Senate Impeachment Court should decide impeachment cases. In

general, Your Honors, all these questions are to be resolved alone by the Senate Impeachment Court because it is the sole judge to try and decide impeachment. The decisions of the Senate Impeachment Court on these matters are what we call political questions. Questions

that are addressed to the wisdom of the senator-judges. Questions that are policy matters which the senator-judges alone should decide.

Having said that, Your Honors, let

me, however, emphasize that not all the actions taken by the Senate Impeachment Court in the exercise of its sole power to try and decide impeachment cases are political in character.

There are certain actions which cannot be categorized as political in character. And these actions can be reviewed and struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

One such action, Your Honors,

is when the Senate Impeachment Court unjustifiably denies some of its members The

denial of

these rights will violate the respondent's right to vote substantive and procedural due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

The denial of these rights is reviewable by the Supreme Court. They do not involve political questions.

And again, I warn that the review by the Supreme Court can result in the annulment of the proceedings in an impeachment case. In the nullity of the decision in the dismissal of the case against any respondent.

I stress all this, Your Honor, to emphasize the importance of correctly interpreting the meaning of the word members in Article 11, Section 3 of the Constitution which provides no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.

Your Honors, let me now proceed to discuss the three questions posed to us as Amnesty.

The first question is whether All members of the Senate in Article 11, Section 36 of the Constitution should refer to the Senate's full membership of 24 senators or only to those who are legally and physically capacitated to participate and vote. on the final question in an impeachment trial.

With all due respect to

others with contrary opinion, I

do not subscribe to the first school of thought in interpreting Article 11, Section 36 of the Constitution.

This school of thought pauses. The textualist approach. Its proponents give a provision of the Constitution a literal reading. A reading that is isolated from other related provisions of the Constitution.

Its origin is traced to the Latin maxim index animo sermo or speech is the index of intention. I respectfully submit, however, that it is inappropriate to give Article 11, Section 3.6 a standalone literal reading. If

we give this kind of reading to Article 11, Section 36. The

threshold of 16 senators to convict will

be fixed and immutable.

However, if that is the intent, Article 11, Section 36 should have simply stated that the number of votes to convict is 16. Period.

But Article 11, Section 36 did not say so. Instead, the language used a fraction. It says two-thirds of all members of the Senate. By using two-thirds, the

number of votes to convict will have to move. depending on certain factors. But

more than that, Your Honors, a strict, stand-alone, literal interpretation of Article 11, Section 36 may result in absurdities and may result in injustices which will defeat For these

reasons, I join the School of Thought that espouses what is known as contextual and functional interpretation of the Constitution.

This interpretation is contextual because Article 11, Section 36 is interpreted not in isolation but in relation to other provisions of the Constitution in order to give life to its purpose. It is functional because it will give the Senators the flexibility to consider circumstances that will legally prevent A senator from functioning as a member of the Senate.

Thus, Your Honors, this approach will give the senators the right to consider whether senators who are already dead, resigned, or expelled should still be counted in determining two-thirds of all the members of

Also, this approach will enable the senators to consider whether senators who are legally incapacitated, like senators charged with plunders, like senators under preventive suspension, should still be counted in determining The number of votes to convict, that is two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. As well expressing various decisions of our Supreme Court,

the provisions of the Constitution should not be interpreted narrowly or pedantically for the prescriptions therein are not Mathematical formulas. Hence, its words are not to be construed to yield fixed and rigid answers, but as impressed with the necessary attributes of flexibility and accommodation to enable them to meet adequately what problems has. Let me go to the second issue.

Whether or not the case of Jose Abelino versus Mariano Cuenco, particularly its treatment of members beyond the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate, applies in determining whether senators who are detained abroad Suspended or whose whereabouts are unknown are included in the praise. All the members of the Senate for purposes of the two-thirds vote required under Article 11, Section 36 of the Constitution.

Strictly speaking, Your Honors.

The Abelino case cannot be cited as a perfect precedent that will resolve the problem of how to properly interpret Article 11, Section 36 of the 1987 Constitution.

First, what was resolved in Abelino is the right number to constitute a quorum, not the right number to convict a respondent in an impeachment case. Second, what was interpreted in Abelino is a constitutional provision that is differently worded. That is, a majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business, etc.

Third, Abelino addressed only the problem of an absent senator outside the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate.

And fourth, the racial dissidenty of the Abelino decision is not a solid Not as clear as it has to be deduced from the different opinions of the participating justices. Be that as it may, Your Honors, each treatment of a member beyond the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate can be used as one of the tests in interpreting Article 11, Section 36 of the 1967 Constitution.

It fits the approach of the contextualist, functionalist school of thought that disfavors the literal approach which straight jackets and prevents the use of

other relevant provisions of the Constitution as additional lens to discover its spirit and intent.

I go, Your Honors, to the last and the third issue.

Whether or not a Senator-Judge who did not attend or substantially participate in the impeachment proceedings. As to among others, profound questions too and observe the demeanor of witness may nevertheless validly cast a vote on the final question in an impeachment trial.

To

iterate, the primary reason why I adhere to the contextual functional school of thought is because of its holistic approach in interpreting a particular provision of the Constitution.

This school of thought teaches us that the meaning of a particular word should be understood in the light of other provisions in the Constitution. relevant to it.

Thus, the word member,

member-senators, who will determine the guilt or innocence of a respondent in an impeachment case must be understood in the light of the function that they will discharge. More specifically, they will be As judges, they must possess special qualifications. They must be independent, fair, and impartial. This is demanded by the due process provision of the Constitution, which Your Honor's... is found in a different article of the Constitution. That is Article 3, Section 1, which provides, No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. A respondent in an impeachment case is also entitled to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal. This

right is universally recognized. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

This right to an independent and impartial tribunal is also mandated by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its Article 41. The Philippines is a signatory to these two documents already ratified by all civilized nations. They are parts of international law and we are duly bound to implement them. For this reason, Article 2 Section 2 of our 1987 Constitution provides the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. Again, Your Honors, this requirement of fair and impartial judges and independent tribunal. are provided in different articles of the 1987 Constitution. You will not find this in Article 11, Section 3, 6 of the Constitution. And so my respectful submission is that they should be considered in determining the proper meaning of the word member. who will try and decide impeachment cases pursuant to Article 11, Section 36 of the Constitution. Your Honors, to allow a member senator to try and decide an impeachment case who is not fair and impartial.

To

subject a respondent in an impeachment case

and to allow him to be tried and adjudged by a tribunal that is not independent or by a tribunal that is biased and prejudiced will have far-reaching consequences.

The whole proceedings can be challenged as a patent nulity, including any judgment of conviction. On the ground of denial of substantive and procedural due process. To quote our Supreme Court, such a judgment is an outlaw that should be slain at sight.

Your Honors, the particular issue raised in the third question is whether or not a Senator-Judge

who did not attend or substantially participate as to, among others, propound questions to and observe the demeanor of witnesses can vote whether to convict or acquit a respondent in an impeachment case.

This question of your own is just a subset of the requirements of fair and impartial judges. and Independent Tribunal. Requirements demanded by due process. I will not tarry on this subset for lack of time. But I ask your honors to take into consideration the following principles and practices. To determine the facts of a case, a judge need not Personally see the demeanor of a witness. Although that is ideal.

Thus, an RTC judge who succeeds another RTC judge can decide the cases left by the latter. Even if the succeeding judge did not personally hear some of the witnesses. who have previously testified.

The

succeeding judge can rely on the testimony of witnesses as reflected in the transcripts of stenographic notes.

So it is with justices of the Court of Appeals. So it is with justices of the Supreme Court. They just review The testimonies of witnesses reflected in the records of the case. Among others, the transcripts, the affidavits, and other documentary evidence. Also, Your Honors may consider that today, witnesses are allowed...

to give their testimonies online.

Case law tells us that testimonies given online do not violate the right of an accused to confront witnesses against him on a face-to-face basis.

Your Honors, we cannot exhaust discussing. All the constitutional dimensions of Particle 11, Section 36 of the Constitution. They involve issues of first impression. The deliberations of the 1935, 1973, and 1987 constitutions did not discuss the issues now before us.

More so with the decisions of foreign courts with comparative provisions in their constitutions. And this, Your Honors, includes decisions of the International Court of Justice and decisions of the International Criminal Court. As I stated, Your Honors, there is no correct or wrong Decision on these issues. There is only a preferred decision. Thank you

very much.

In the TSN journal of this trial. But any memorandum you will submit afterwards would be appreciated nevertheless. May we now proceed to former Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna. If you will please, sir. You may deliver your speech while sitting down or using the rostrum, sir.

Honorable Senate President Castellan, honorable Senate Presiding Officer Escudero, Honorable senators, judges, my esteemed colleagues when we're in the Supreme Court,

the prosecution and defense panels, good

morning and thank you for the invitation for the first ever amicus curiae invited by an impeachment court in our history. I

am here to answer

The questions as a friend of the court representing neither party and expressing my personal opinion on the constitutional and legal issues propounded by the advisory of the court to me.

Your Honors, the first question is whether the phrase all the members of the Senate In Article 11, Section 3, Subsection 6 of the 1987 Constitution should refer to the Senate's full membership of 24 senators or only to those who are legally and physically capacitated to participate and vote on the final question in an impeachment trial. I

respectfully submit your honors.

That the reference in this provision is to all members of the Senate. As long as they are members of the Senate, they constitute the denominator in computing the threshold of two-thirds, because all means all. To

start with, Your Honors, impeachment is a political, judicial, Hybrid exercise. It is not an ordinary voting procedure.

Impeachment removes a sitting, popularly accountable official, often directly elected before the end of a fixed term. Unlike ordinary legislation, Your Honors, which can be revised, amended, A conviction in an impeachment case is final and largely irreversible. The official is removed and in many systems disqualified from future office. A decision this consequential and a decision this hard to undo. warrants a higher threshold of agreement than routine business. Just as constitutional amendments, treaty ratification, and expulsion of a sitting senator require super majorities. The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is exercising a quasi-judicial function layered on top of a political one, and the gravity of such function justifies a heightened standard of proof of consensus. The

supermajority rule protects against factional and partisan abuse.

The framers of the supermajority impeachment clause were reacting to a specific fear that impeachment could become a tool for a transient legislative majority to remove a political rival or an official from a disfavored party, effectively overturning an election result through legislative fiat rather than through the ballot box. A simple majority threshold, Your Honors, would make impeachment conviction achievable by whichever coalition happens to control the chamber at any given moment, collapsing the distinction between removable for cause and removable because we have the votes. Requiring two-thirds forces conviction to rest on a coalition that cuts across ordinary partisan lines, which is precisely the point. It signals that the wrongdoing is serious and broadly, not merely factually, recognized. It

preserves separation of powers. and checks legislative overreach. Impeachment already concentrates significant powers on the legislature. It is simultaneously the accuser, the prosecutor, and the judge. Without an internal check, the concentration of powers would allow the legislative branch to dominate the executive and the judicial branches. simply by threatening or wielding removal. The two-thirds requirement functions as an internal check. It disperses the power to convict widely enough that no single faction, however large, can unilaterally topple another branch of government. In this sense, the supermajority rule is not an obstacle to accountability. It is part of the system of accountability, assuring that the impeachment power itself is exercised responsibly. It

encourages deliberation over expediency. A conviction requiring broad consensus compels senators To sustain a case that persuades across functional lines, which in turn incentivizes a more thorough, evidence-based process rather than a rushed or emotionally charged one.

Lowering the threshold to a simple majority would reward speed and numbers over persuasion and proof. and would make the trial phase in the Senate largely redundant. If the outcome is preordained by whichever party holds a bare majority, the trial becomes a formality rather than a genuine deliberative check.

Finally, Your Honors, the two-thirds of all members, all members,

Standard guards against a thin and unrepresentative conviction. The clause deliberately anchors the threshold to two-thirds of all the members of the Senate, not merely the two-thirds of a quorum present at trial. This is a stricter and more demanding base

In

conclusion, your honors, what

we mean by supermajority is that the vote needed to convict must be more than simple majority. It cannot be one-half plus one.

Our framers of the Constitution, not just 1987, way back 1935, wants it to be two-thirds, in the case of 1935, three-fourths of all the members of the Senate, all. That is because we need a supermajority because of the gravity of the exercise.

Basing the denominator on only those who actually participate and are present can effectively reduce the two-thirds to a simple majority. For example, if there's only 20 who are participating, two-thirds of 20 would effectively become 13 or 14. So that would be... Really simple majority. That is not the purpose of the internal check of a threshold. A threshold must be fixed, not variable. It must be determinable from the start. It cannot be something that will be figured out as we go along, depending on how many are present. So the two-thirds concurrence requirement is not a technicality. It's not a fluke of drafting. It reflects a deliberate judgment that impeachment conviction, final, disqualifying, and capable of overturning the choice of the electorate, should require a demonstrated cross-factional consensus rather than the assent of a bare majority. It is this feature More than any other that gives impeachment a remedy for genuine and serious misconduct rather than a routine weapon of partisan competition. For these reasons, this humble representation sustains the view that no person shall be convicted in an impeachment case without the concurrence of two-thirds. of all the members of the Senate. As to the other questions, Your Honor, the Avellino v. Cuenco case is not applicable here because, to start with, it was decided on the basis of the 1935 Constitution where the wording involved was different. It involved quorum and the quorum requirement under the 1935 Constitution says majority of the Senate. It didn't say all the members, yes, majority of the Senate. And so it's not applicable whatever interpretation of that majority of the Senate for purposes of quorum is different from the two-thirds of all the members of the Senate required in impeachment cases. As to whether or not, the difficult question, someone, one of you, who has not attended all

the hearings, I will quote it,

whether or not the senator-judge who did not attend or substantially participate in the impeachment proceedings, as to among others, propound questions to and observe the demeanor of witnesses, may nevertheless validly cast a vote on the final question in an impeachment trial.

I

believe, Your Honor, that this is an internal matter that should be decided by the Senate according to its own wisdom.

The voting, this voting now, this is not computation of the threshold. Whether or not such a member who has not attended all the hearings but presumably has taken an oath and is part of the central judges participating in the trial but missed some of the trials may nevertheless cast a vote.

If there is no rule in the Senate as to that, what is my opinion?

I think, Your Honor, in case of doubt, I would allow Such a person to vote because this tribunal is a tribunal of record.

The

proceedings are recorded. Someone who fails or is absent in some of the trials can easily check what the witnesses testified to based on the transcript. Moreover, most of the evidence here is documentary so someone who has not

appeared in some of

the hearings can check on the documents involved. So personally, I would decide in favor of allowing such a senator-judge to vote according to, of course, the conscience of such judge. Remember that a senator-judge participating in an impeachment case takes an oath. What does that oath say? The oath says that the Senator-Judge swears to render impartial judgment according to the Constitution and the laws of the Philippines. If he or she feels that he or she can render impartial judgment honestly according to the Constitution and the laws, then even if he missed one or two, Or maybe even substantially most of the hearings, but still based on the record he or she feels that he can honestly judge the respondent, I would allow. But that's me. This is, I said, internal matter for the Senate to decide according to a rule it may adopt on this basis. Thank you again, Your Honor. Respectfully, sir.

Kaalaman, Karunungan, Karanasan, at Pagunawa, kaugnay sa mga katanungan na kinakaharapo ng hukumang ito. With the permission of our Amici Curie and with the permission of the parties and Senator-Judges, we shall break

for early lunch so that the parties and the Senator-Judges can digest the overflowing information.

Former Justices and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

So if you can pause for lunch and resume at 12.30 for the interjections of the senator judges and by the parties through the presiding officer. And I would like to invite Our esteemed former Chief Justice Puno Panganiban and former Associate Justice Azcuna to join us for lunch. Sir, please, a brief lunch at the lounge as we declare a recess from the trial. Trial is declared to be in recess until 12.30 in the afternoon.

With the permission of our distinguished Amici Curie, you may answer from where you're seated. You have active mics.

We will now proceed with the interventions and interjections of the senator judges. Again, to remind the parties, they may send their questions through the Presiding Officer, who shall be the one to read it in their behalf. First to avail of the opportunity and privilege to make interjections would be Senator-Judge Zubiri. You are recognized, sir, for your interjections. You have five minutes, a maximum of five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer, my dear colleagues, and good morning to the amici curiae, our distinguished justices and chief justices of

the Supreme Court.

Tackling precedents, your honors. As your majority floor leader and chairman of the Rules Committee, as well as chairman concurrently of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I had stumbled upon a precedent in the 11th Congress, this is the 2000 to 2001, during its fifth special session on the 19th of March of 2001.

Before I tackle that, under our rules, Section 135, if there is no rule applicable to a specific case, the precedents of the Legislative Department of the Philippines shall be resorted to. And as supplemental to this, the rules contained in Jefferson's manual, Riddick's precedents, and Practices and Hind's precedents, as well as the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court is what we follow. if there is no particular rule in our records or our rulebook of the Senate. And this particular session, Your Honors, and if I may flash to the screen, we concurred four treaties. We concurred on four treaties on third reading. In the, nasa saligang batas natin ay limang beses po binabanggit ang two-thirds vote. of all members and I believe it is in the declaration of war I think on the overturning a veto of the president as well as I forget the other two and of course impeachment as well as treaties as part of the five times that it is specifically mentioned in the constitution and in this case your honors Four treaties were approved on third reading with only 13 senators. And these are the treaties as follows.

And let me just read before they flash to the screen. Let me just read the treaties. This was the Copenhagen amendments to the Montreal Protocol on the substances that deplete ozone layer and London agreements. Second, the treaty on Southeast Asia's nuclear weapons-free zone. Third, the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. And fourth is the acceptance of the fourth Proposed Fourth Amendment to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund. Now, the Constitution says two-thirds of all its members will constitute the vote for the treaty. In this case, Your Honors, only 13 Senators concurred in approving these treaties, and they are as follows. Senator Tessia Aquino-Oreta, Senator Rodolfo Biazon, Senator Renato Cayetano, Senator Ana Domenico Seteng, Senator Juan Ponce-Enrile, Senator Flavier, Senator Gregorio Honasan, Senator Loren Legarda-Leviste, Senator Blas Ople, Senator John Henry Osmeña, Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr., Senator Ramon Revilla Sr., and Senator Vicente Soto III. At that time, Senator Soto was the Majority Floor Leader. The Senate President at that time was Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., and the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations was Senator Blas Ople, the late Senator Blas Ople. In the journal, Senator Gigona at that time was appointed or was elected as, chosen as the Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines. Senator Marcelo Fernan had died also on the 11th of July of 1999, so there was a vacancy. Senator Francisco Tatad, I'm sorry, Senator Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected as Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines.

was appointed Vice President of the Philippines. Senator Marcelo Fernand had died in 1999. Senator Francisco Tatad was on official mission, I failed to mention. He was abroad but declared as official mission. And Senator Gloria Macabagal-Arroyo, whose term should have ended in 2001, was elected as Vice President in 1998. So there was a vacancy.

I also recall during this time, Senator Raul Noroco was appointed as Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports. And so, there were vacancies, and the Senate at that time had declared that the number to approve treaties was not 16, but 13, Your Honor. And to conclude, because this is just one question that I would like to ask our distinguished Amici Curie. Did the Senate violate the Constitution at this particular instance? Because we also be guided to be guided. Did we violate the Constitution at this instance? Did we err in the approval of these four very important international treaties? We just 13 members at the time declared us having constituted two-thirds of the Senate. Thank you very much.

Are you addressing the question to any particular Amicus Curiae or anyone?

Anyone of them, of the three distinguished Amici Curiae, member of Amicus Curiae, would like to comment. Did we violate the Constitution? Was this a proper... Was it proper at that time? Is this unconstitutional, Your Honors? Your own personal opinions. Because this is a precedent already of the Senate and these are a part of the records of the Senate. And what I presented was the actual journal of the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines.

Anyone who wishes to respond may do so. Former Chief Justice Art Panganiman, sir, if you'll please. Yes,

Your Honor. The short answer is no. The Senate did not commit any act that is contrary to the Constitution. But I think we must first make a distinction. In that particular instance that you said, Your Honor, the Senate was sitting as a ratifying body of treaties. In this instance, in the present instance, it is an impeachment court. There's a little difference. Because in the first instance, you didn't have a trial. You just had deliberation among yourselves. You didn't get witnesses like this. Perhaps resource speakers, yes. But not a trial where truth was being extracted from witnesses. In this case, you... I think the Senate was correct in saying that those who are no longer senators cannot be counted in the denominator.

Since four were no longer senators, well, one was abroad, which is outside, could not vote. One was already vice president. Another was a cabinet member already. In other words, there were only 20. And 13 voted.

If

we compute that, 2 thirds of 20, 20, 13.

So the mathematics is correct, Senator-Judge Zubiri. So I think the Senate did not commit any violation of the Constitution. And the proof of that is nobody has raised that question.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Chief Justice CJ Panganiban. Next, to make his interjections, we recognize Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva. You have not more than five minutes, sir. You may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer. First of all, before I ask clarificatory questions to our amicus curiae, may I just put into the records of this Chamber, Mr. President, our sincerest thanks and gratitude to our guests, Justice Ascuna, Chief Justice Panganiban, Chief Justice Puno. Maraming salamat po sa inyong servisyo sa bayan at isa hong malaking karangalan ang makasama po kayo ngayong araw na ito. Pinag-uusapan ho namin kanina ng buong Senado. Ito na ho yung pinaka...

May I just ask si former Chief Justice Ray Puno

Chief Justice po, binanggit niyo po kanina doon sa presentation niyo po na hindi binanggit yung number 16 but instead use the fraction two-thirds of all members. And I think right now all of us would no longer debate on the issue as to the two-thirds. Pero hindi din po binanggit na Two-thirds of the members present.

Ano po ang tingin niyo po dito? Kasi sa Article 6, Section 3-6, expressly uses all the members of the Senate, not those present, not those voting, nor ginamit yung Senator-Judges. In Article 6, Section 2 and 4, establish the Senate's composition and the fixed terms of the Senators.

Ang denominator would always be 24. But then again, yes, hindi po expressly said 16 or fixed 16, which Justice Ascuna is talking about kanina. May we know your thoughts on this, sir?

Totoo po yun. Kung yung Article 11, Section 36,

Ay ginamit na salita yung threshold 16 period. Wala na po tayong pag-uusapan. Malinaw na malinaw yun. Ganon din po kung ginamit yung salitang present, wala na rin po tayong pag-uusapan. Malinaw na mali daw yung word na present.

Kanya sa ibang Constitution, ang ginamit na salita ay present at doon sa kanilang jurisdiction ay walang kaguluhan. Hindi kailangang tumawag ng mga Amici Curie. Eh hindi po na ganun ang naging wording ng Article 11, Section 3C.

Dahil sa ganyan, nagkakaroon tayo ng iba't ibang interpretasyon at sinabi namin dito yung iba't ibang schools of thought in interpreting Article 11, Section 3C. Ang sabi ko nga ay yung dalawang schools of thought, meron namang pinagbabasihang konstitusyon. Kanya mahirap sabihin. na yung isang school of thought ay tama, yung isa ay mali. We just keep an open mind.

Maraming salamat po at yan yung dahilan kung bakit ngayong araw na ito open-minded po kaming lahat. Ako po mismo, binabanggit ko dito sa buluwagang nito, lumaki po ako sa Rules Committee doon po sa House of Representatives at dito po sa Senado. And napaka-stricto po namin Every time we talk about, for example, concurring in a treaty, yung Article 3, Article 7, Section 21, two-thirds po yan, yung to convict in an impeachment trial, para po sa akin noon, napaka-klaro at hindi kailangan pagdibatihan itong Article 11, Section 3, 6 until today when I heard the two former Chief Justices. Yung override po ng presidential veto, Article 6, Section 27.1, two-thirds din po. Suspension or expelling a senator or a congressman, Article 6, Section 16.3, two-thirds pa rin po. Kaya po, ang next question ko po kay Chief Justice Panganiban po, kapag po ang isang halal na mambabatas ay legal na napipigilang gampanan ang kanyang tungkulin, nangangahulugan po ba na itong Hindi na siya miyembro at hindi na po siya dapat talaga isama sa bilang ng denominator, former Chief Justice.

Ang

sinabi niyo pong example na senador ay yung nakakulong. Hindi po ba?

Nakakulong or legally detained? Kaya nga po.

Detained siya. Nakakulong, detained.

Eh pwede po ba siyang bumoto? Kaya na ata ang tanong ninyo. Siya ba'y membro pa ng Senado? Siyempre po, siya'y membro pa ng Senado. Hindi naman siya nag-resign. Hindi naman siya in-expel. Kaya membro pa siya ng Senado. Hindi naman po ang pinag-uusapan natin kung membro o hindi. Ang pinag-uusapan po natin ay may karapatan ba siyang bumuto? Meron ba siyang...

May karapatan ba siyang magsalita na alam niya ang nangyayari? Nakita ba niya yung mga testigo? Narinig ba niya ang kanilang testimonya? Alam niyo po, kung yung isang magulang nag-aaway yung dalawang anak,

e,

maribang hindi muna niya pakinggan yung dalawang bata para malaman niya kung sinong may kasalanan. Nagtuturoan sila kung sinong may kasalanan. Kailangan po pakinggan muna. Tatangin mo yun na yung bata. Hindi ko ba? Tatanungin muna. Anong nangyari? Titignan niya yung mata. Yun nung hindi nagsasalita ng totoo, hindi pa katingin sa magulang eh. Ganon din po ang mga testigo. Kailangan nakikita ng mga humusga. Pagkat alam ninyo kung nagsasabi ng totoo o hindi ang isang tao. Kaya po ang aking sinasabi eh, kailangan

makuha yung totoo. Para makuha yung totoo, kailangan maobserbahan ninyo yung testigo. Bakit sinasabi nila? Bakit ang Supreme Court? Eh, nagdi-desisyon, wala naman silang nakikita ang testigo. Totoo po yun. Sapagkat po ang Supreme Court is a review court, it's not a trial court. But this court,

the

Senate, acting as an impeachment court, is a trial court. Because you want to know the truth firsthand. Not from records, but from your experience. Ganyan po ang inyong, sa aking palagay, ang inyong gawain. Bakit po kayo narito? Sapagkat gusto nyong malaman ang katotohanan. At ang katotohanan, malalaman ninyo personally. Hindi lamang sa sabi-sabi ng iba. Hindi lamang sa nababasa ninyo. Kung hindi sa inyong eksperyensa. na nakukuha ninyo. Kayo po ay halal ng bayan. Hindi naman kayo abogado. Kaya ang inyong basihan ay yung inyong eksperyensya. Kaya po sinabi ko yung ang isang bata o dalawang bata na nag-aaway, magkapatid, eh gustong malaman ng magulang kung sino ang may kasalanan, kung sino ang ilalagay sa corner, bibigyan ng karapatang parusa, eh kailangan pakinggan muna sila. Isa-isa. Hindi pwede yung darating magulang eh. Sasabihin na lang. Sabi ni Kwan, ganito-ganito ang nangyari. Kaya ikaw eh, hindi ko na bibigyan ng allowance. Hindi po po pwede yun. Kailangan eh, marinig niyo yung bata. Otherwise, magkagalit yung bata sa inyo. Hindi man lang sila pinakinggan. Hindi man lang kinuha ang kanilang panig. Ganon din po.

Ginagawa po simple sapagkat sa ating pong mga senador, Eh simple lang po tayo lahat tao. Eh sapagkat tayo po hindi naman abogado, hindi naman jurist. Kinukuha po natin sa ating eksperyensya. Paano ba nating malalaman ng katotohanan? At pag nalaman natin ng katotohanan, paano po nating igagawad ang ating pag-usga?

Kailangan malamin natin ng katotohanan at kailangan maging pata sa ating pag-usga. Ganun po.

Maraming salamat po. At Chief Justice, yung sa haluswas at rilyanes, kinila... Ay, sorry po. Sorry, Mr. President.

Yes, Your Honor. That question involves a lot of legal dimensions.

Ngunit ang isang dimension yan ay yung tanong... Kung nakakulog ba ang isang tao, hindi ba ito pwedeng palayain to fulfill another duty as a citizen of the Philippines? For

whatever it may be worth, let me share this fact with the members of the Senate Tribunal.

Alam po natin na may mga pagkakataon. Nagkakaroon ng pisto, hindi ba? Yung mga membro ng Communist Party at ang Republic of the Philippines. At mayroong mga membro ng Communist Party na nakakulong. They were facing charges. And

yet, Some of these leaders of the Communist Party facing charges and were imprisoned were used as advisors in the peace process.

So ang ginawa po nila ay nag-file ng proper motion doon sa mga husgado upang pakawalan Itong mga tao na ito at para makakontribute sila sa peace process. At sila ay pinayagan ng ating mga husigado. So I'm sharing this part for the impeachment court to consider.

So

that you can view that question. Kung ito ba yung tao na ito ay nakakulong? ay hindi na pwedeng apply for any reason whatsoever.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Pwede po i-follow up po yung binanggit niyo po na yan. So yan pong binabanggit niyo po, Chief Justice Puno, yan po ay maaari po ba nating sabihin legal na tulay mula sa cannot presently exercise the office tungo doon sa shall no longer be counted as a member?

Ang sinasabi ko po ay

Pwede nating bigyan ng second look yung question na yan. Alimbawa, yung mga sinasight na decisions dito kung saan yung nakakulong na tao ay membro ng leislatura. They were charged with offenses in connection with their office.

At dahil doon nagkaroon na sila ng suspension from the performance of their office. At halos lahat na ito ay mga, yung mga pinag-uusapan natin, mga membro ng Congress. So yung suspension nila from office, a suspension as members of Congress. Suspension from performing their functions as legislators, as accused. E dito po sa sitwasyon na limbawa na ito, kung sila ay re-release, they will be released not because they are accused, but because they will perform their duties as judges.

Hindi naman matagal yung performance nila ng duties nila as judges. Sandali lang naman po itong impeachment eh. And then they can perform their duties as judges na hindi naman kailangan pumunta dito sa Senado eh. Pwede silang doon sa kung saan sila nakakulog. Pwede silang bigyan ng whatever devices, laptops. They can see the witnesses testifying. They can be provided with the transcripts. So in that kind of situation, the question is, pwede po bang bigyan sila ng ganoong karapatan? It's an open question. Maraming

salamat po. Now it's very clear na hindi pareho ang cannot act at is no longer a member. Let me ask Justice Ascuna, sir, kailangan po bang personal na dumalo? Kasi binabanggit niyo kanina, you were so sure doon sa fixed number sa threshold ng conviction sa isang impeachment proceedings. Kailangan po bang personal na dumalo ang isang senator-judge? sa halos buong paglilitis bago po siya makaboto o maaari niyang punan ang kanyang pagliban sa pamamagitan ho nung pagdireview na kaninang bilanggit po niya Justice Puno na true TSN lang po ang kanyang basihan sa pagdidesisyon dito sa isang proceeding na ito.

Kailangan po siguro aliwanagin natin kung ang pinag-uusapan natin ay karapatan bumoto o yung

threshold na two-thirds kung saan kahit na hindi siya maaring bumoto, kung habang siya ay nananatiling niyembro ng Senado, kasama pa rin siya sa pagbilang ng two-thirds sa threshold. Kaya we have to make a distinction between the right to vote in the impeachment proceedings and the inclusion of that person in computing the two-thirds. As long as he is a member of the Senate, he has to be included in the two-thirds denominator.

The only exception is If he dies, if he is removed from office or if he resigns, no more. So right now, no one is dead. No one has resigned. No one has been removed. So we are 24. So 24 is the denominator. Supposing, God forbid, one is removed or one resigns or one dies.

Then the denominator becomes 23. That's why we did that put 16. Because 16 is not always two-thirds. Two-thirds of the members. Not the membership. The members. So actual members. If there are only 20 members, then two-thirds of 20. That is what the Constitution means in my view.

Salamat tolong. Kaya ako po ito na itanong because the next question is How do we prevent both sabotage and manipulation doon sa pagbilang ng numero? In fact, every start of the impeachment trial merong roll call kasama pa rin po sa roll call. Yung mga kasamahan po namin maaaring wala po dito o maaaring legally detained.

Justice Ascuna, ano po kayang neutral Neutral rule ayon sa ating saligang batas ang pupwede po nating maging preventive measure para mapigilan yung binabanggit po nating whether sabotaging or manipulating the numbers. Example po, kung laging 24 ang denominator, maaaring gawing veto ang pagtatago. Pagtatangging manumpa o sasadyain po na lumiban, Dito sa bulwagang ito. Pero kung bawat absence naman po ay otomatikong magpapababa sa bilang, maaari naman pong lumikha ng artificial majority sa pamamagitan ng pag-exclude sa mga tutol. So, paano po? Meron po bang neutral rule according to our Constitution that would prevent These things ought to happen, sir. Kindly

wind up, Senator

Jaljong. Yes,

I'm winding up, sir, presiding officer. Thank you.

Justice Ascuna.

Sa palagay ko po, may mga ilang hakbang na maaaring gawin ng Senado upang mapigilan itong sitwasyon na, for example, you have three or four are being detained for some kind of charges and not able to participate in the proceedings. while remaining senators. So, counted sila sa threshold ngunit hindi sila makaboto. One way of remedying that is to pass a law saying that anybody, any senator who is detained may still participate in the proceedings, may be allowed to participate. Right now,

There's no law prohibiting them from participating but it's

the Sandiganbayan does not allow them to come participate. So pasa law saying that the person who was obliged to attend the impeachment proceedings must be allowed to attend. After all, they are not yet guilty. They are presumed innocent. There's no final judgment against them. So why a law requiring the Sandiganbayan to allow a detained senator to come and participate will I think be a valid law.

Salamat po and let me wind up by saying I think our guests here agree would agree that no senator should be able to manufacture a veto by disappearing. But no majority should be able to manufacture a conviction by deleting opponents from the denominator.

are from the point of view of the Senators. I would like to say on my part that I'm talking about justice for our people. Justice for our people. What do our people expect from you? It's not legalism. It's not judicial conduct. It is justice for our people.

Yan po hinihingi ng taong bayan sa inyo. Ano po ba ang katotohanan? Ano po ba ang sasabihin ninyo na makapagsasabi na nagbigay kayo ng justisya sa ating bayan? Kedalawan po kayo, kedalawampat-apat kayo, kedalawa lang kayo. Ang hinahanap po ng ating bayan ay justisya mula sa Senado. Hindi po pinakikialaman siguro ng mga tao.

Kung sino ang nagbibigay ng justisya? Kung hindi, para sa kanila, meron ba silang justisya na nakikita, na nadadama, na nararamdaman?

In other words, Your Honors, I speak from the point of view of those, of our people, not from the point of view of the judges.

Thank you. Thank

you, Senator-Judge Villanueva. I

think CJ Puno would also like to... Yes,

CJ Puno.

Again, the facts and the factors that you stated are very important but I would like to view them from another window.

Ano po ang epekto nito sa karapatan ng isang respondent sa isang impeachment case? Will that deprive the respondent of

being judged by judges who are fair and impartial? Will the respondent be denied the right to be judged by an impartial tribunal? Sa akin po, importante na iyon ay matarok natin kung ano ang kasagutan.

Our former Chief Justice and our Associate Justice who accepted our invitation to be our amicus curiae this afternoon. Thank you, Your Honors. My first question, I would like to direct this question to former Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna. Sir? As a framer of the Constitution, is it true that the 1987 Philippine Constitution is largely modeled after the United States Constitution of 1787?

The Philippine Constitution does not exactly follow the U.S. Constitution, sir.

Correct, sir. I do understand. Pero actually derive. I used the wrong term but derived because may sinasabi po sila na doon po sa 1787 US Constitution, it explicitly say that two-thirds of the members present. Now my question sir is why did the Philippine framers deliberately altered the text to read two-thirds of all members of the Senate? Is there a reason sir?

Can you give us a reason why it was? Okay,

you're asking why, notwithstanding that the U.S. Constitution explicitly says that in order to convict, the Senate must have two-thirds of those present. And yet, in 1935, when Philippines adopted its own Constitution, they did not follow that, but instead they said, Three-fourths, in fact, three-fourths of all the members of the National Assembly. Unicameral po yung ginawa nila 1935. So, bakit po ginawa na rekto sina Laurel? Bakit hindi sinunod na lamang yung US Constitution? I think it was a deliberate act on the part of the framers of the Philippine 1935 Constitution. To make it harder to convict an impeach official, not only changing the two-thirds of the U.S. to three-fourths, while the U.S. had two-thirds of those present, the 1935 Constitution says three-fourths of those, all the members of the National Assembly. So there is a deliberate Constitutional design to adopt our own version, which is harder than the U.S., sir.

All right. Thank you, Justice Azcuna. My next question is for any of our former Supreme Court Chief Justices and Associate Justices. Let us assume, sir, that the several senators are involuntarily absent. Whether because of medical incapacity, detention, or other circumstances, and their absence makes the constitutionally required 16 votes practically impossible to obtain. Does the constitutional purpose of an impeachment proceeding support maintaining a fixed 16-vote requirement, even if the Senate cannot realistically exercise its power to decide the case? Your honors.

Chief Justice Panganiban, sir.

Yes, you have given an example of why 16 should not be fixed. If, for example, just as an example, five

justices or rather senators die, three senators resign, that means there are only left 16.

That means that all 16 must vote unanimously. I don't think so. We say, why is it that we have two-thirds still? Two-thirds of those able to vote, those who are able to deliver truth and fairness to our people. It's because two-thirds is still two-thirds of 16.

It's two-thirds of those remaining are able to vote. Otherwise, you'll have to immobilize the Senate as a source of justice for our people. I say that the 16 or even the 15 remaining can still render justice, can still examine witnesses in front of our people in order to be able to render truth and fairness to our people. To me, legalities do not matter very much because our people are not lawyers. They are not jurists. They are not used to objecting to leading questions or misleading questions. They are not used to technicalities. In fact, technicalities to them merely delay justice. The important thing for the Senate, in my opinion, in my humble opinion, is that the Senate is able to answer the call for truth and fairness. Never mind the technicalities, the truth and fairness. Even if only three of you rendered that and our people are happy, then you would have rendered your service to our people. If our people wanted technicalities and legalities, then the Constitution should have said the Supreme Court shall be

The body that will determine impeachment cases. Hindi po ganun ang ginawa eh. Kaya po sa akin, baga man ako eh isang former Chief Justice, naging maestrado ng ating Korte Suprema, hindi po ako naniniwala na ang dapat na gamitin ay ang mga batas ng sinusunod ng Supreme Court. Ang mga procedures ng Supreme Court. Kung gusto ng ating konstitusyon, I will follow the words of the Supreme Court, the words of the lawyers. The Constitution should not decide the Supreme Court. That is not what the Constitution says. What the Constitution says is that the Senate will give justice to our country. That is why I

am saying, use your power as a judge. Your understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Just like the fathers of our homes, of our families. They are

not lawyers, but they know how to give justice to their families. They don't follow the rules of the Senate or the rules of the Supreme Court or even the Robert's Rules of Order. But they know how to give justice to their families because that is their duty. To give justice for their families. That is

what I am saying. The Supreme Court will not

give justice here.

Why

would we ask what the Supreme Court will

do in your place? In my opinion, that

is not the right question. Anong gagawin niyo bilang halal ng bayan? Yan po ang aking thesis ditong ngayon.

Former Chief Justice Puno, sir, you said earlier to interpret Article 11, Section 3, subsection 6 of the 1987 Constitution, it should be like verba legis non residentum. And then you have added, you said like that it should not be interpreted alone, but it should be ikanga also be interpreted with other articles of the Constitution.

The question, sir, is kasi may mga legal luminaries making comments outside of this court, people are reading. They're saying na hindi, ito yung sinabi ng batas. Dapat sundin ito by the letter. Is that correct, former Chief Justice?

Dalawang nga po yung schools of thought on how to interpret the Constitution. Yung unang school of thought, yung verba legis literal interpretation of the Constitution. I am not included in that school of thought, the literal reading of a provision of the Constitution. For example, if you look at the Bill of Rights, it states that no law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech. Isn't that right? No law shall be passed. Literally, if we follow that, we will

not be able

to pass laws on punishing libel, punishing slander, punishing cyber slander and so forth. That example is followed by a Justice in the US Supreme Court, Justice Black.

and the so-called liberal justices. No law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech. That's it. No law. Absolutely.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. What did Justice Holmes say? A person has no right to shout at a theater full of people when there is no fire. So

in other words, there are certain provisions of the Constitution which you cannot... literally interpret. The other school of thought says that all provisions of the Constitution should be interpreted in light of other relevant provisions. And that's where I stand.

For example, the word member.

We shouldn't...

In light of the other provisions of the Constitution. What are the other provisions of the Constitution which will throw light in the proper understanding of the word member in this provision? What I'm saying is that we should

look at the function. They did the discharge of that member. Isn't that member going to be a juez, a judge? What does our Constitution say, the decisions of the Supreme Court, regarding a member who is serving as a judge?

One requirement is that the member

should be fair and impartial. Is

it wrong that we interpret the word member in Article 11, Section 3-6, that one member should be fair and impartial?

For

me, that interpretation is right because that interpretation follows.

In the due process clause of our Constitution, we should give such a judge who is not only in the criminal case, not only in the administrative case, but even here in the impeachment court.

And for me, if that

is the right for a respondent

to

be able to explain, that is a question that can be raised in the Supreme Court. That is a non-political question. That is a justiciable question. And if that can

be proven,

all of our proceedings may be set aside to be declared null and void. That is my opinion.

Thank you, former Chief Justice. Let me ask all three of you again, starting with former Chief Justice Panganiban. Sir, with what you said earlier, is it correct to say that you're leaving the decision on this court to decide what is really the threshold? What does two-thirds mean? So are you telling us that we will decide? The Supreme Court is not allowed?

Is that what you're driving at?

Yes, you are an independent, free court. In fact, I hate, I mean, I am hesitant to call you an impeachment court because there is no such thing in the Constitution. That is according to your rules. The Constitution merely said the Senate shall... Be the sole judge to try and decide impeachment cases. He did not say the Senate shall become an impeachment court. That's just an aside. Sa akin po, ang sinasabi ko is substance. Ano inihingi po ng ating konstitusyon na kayo bilang halal ng bayan, kayo magdidesisyon. Hindi po ang Korte Suprema dapat. Because if our Constitution wants the Supreme Court to

make a decision, you shouldn't have made the Senate make the decision. You should have just

said, the Supreme Court should decide. That's

not what our Constitution says. What the Senate says will make the decision regarding impeachment. That's why I'm saying, even though I'm saying

Former Chief Justice, of which I'm not ashamed. But what I'm saying is, you are called upon by our people to decide impeachment cases. Then decide it from where you sit. You don't become Supreme Court justices. Because if the Constitution wanted you to become Supreme Court justices, then it must have required you to be lawyers. It must have required you to pass the bar examination. It must have required you to study four years of law after four years of preparatory law.

Thank you, sir.

Kayo po

ang masusunod Only when you commit grave abuse of discretion, not just abuse of discretion, but grave abuse of discretion, should your decision be set aside. Why is that? Because under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has two major functions. Under Article 8, Section 1 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court shall review decisions of lower court. That's the first. Review court po ang Supreme Court. Hindi trial court. Kaya po ang sinasabi natin, ang Supreme Court decides only questions of law. It does not decide questions of fact. In other words, the facts are already settled when the case is brought to the Supreme Court. Once in a while, the facts are not settled. Kaya binabalik ko ng Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is just a court that reviews the questions of law. Questions of law lang po, hindi questions of facts. The facts are already established when a case goes to the Supreme Court. Ganun po ang palakad sa Supreme Court. Pero hindi po ganun ang palakad dito. Kayo po ang maghahanap ng katotohanan eh. That's

why you conduct trials. And when you conduct trials, sorry to say this, you act as if you are judges.

You are sometimes trapped by that. Because the non-lawyers don't understand why it's like that.

It takes four years of pre-law and four years of law and then you wait another six months for the bar examination. The Constitution

does not require you to

be a lawyer. The Constitution

does not require you to

be a judge.

What the Constitution says is that you, halal of the people, are entrusted with the

trust that you will be given justice in the case

of an impeachment. I will return to my example. Many of you have children. When they are small, you discipline them. You

may say, you're not a lawyer, you're not a judge, how can you sentence me? It's

not like that, right? It's

the same for you, the forefathers of our country. Forefathers and mothers of our country. So you do your job in disciplining your people. And the people includes the highest officials of this country. So you discipline them in the manner that you do best. You are not constrained by the technicalities of procedures.

That is my message to you. Do not say that

you are jueces. You are not jueces. Sorry to say that.

And you do not need to be jueces to give justice in impeachment hearings. You are the fathers and mothers of our country and our people.

You will be the ones to discipline the highest officials of this country in the way you know best as the mothers and fathers of our country. Thank

you very much.

of the Senate.

I said that the Senate Impeachment Court is not under the Supreme Court. I explained that the intention of the Constitution is under the Impeachment Court, the Supreme Court. The Senate Impeachment Court should

be established under the Supreme Court or under Article 8 of the Supreme Court that defines all the powers of the Supreme Court.

The title is Judiciary or Judicial Department.

But

it's different. The

Senate Impeachment Court was

established not under Article 8, but under Article 11 of the Constitution. What is Article 11? The title is Accountability. In

other words, the intention of our Constitution, the intention of our citizens, is to give all the power to impeachment. From making rules, from trial to decision, to the Senate Impeachment Court.

That power was textually given by the Constitution to our Senate Impeachment Tribunal under Article 11.

The Senate Impeachment Court should have put

all the powers in Article 8 of the Judicial Department. Ihiwalay po ang Senate Impeachment Court doon.

Lahat ng courts na

ginawa na dapat under sa Supreme Court, nandun.

This means that the impeachment court is given the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.

So from stage one to the last stage, Power is given to the Senate Impeachment Court as the sole judge. Ang gusto sabihin ng sole judge kung anong naging desisyon ng Senate Impeachment trial. That is it. That is final. Sole judge eh.

Pero again, mayroong mga fine points diyan. Ang gusto sabihin po nun,

Generally speaking,

all the actions of the Senate Impeachment Court, from step one, the promulgation of rules, trial, and decisions,

are

what we call actions that constitute political questions. These are questions addressed to wisdom.

of the members of the Senate Impeachment Court. They are policy matters. It cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. For example, a decision, whatever it is, acquittal or conviction,

it

cannot be submitted to the Supreme Court. If we read Article 8, we will see the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There is

nothing in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Senate Impeachment Tribunal. That is the general rule. But there is still some action left

for

the Senate Impeachment Tribunal to review.

Supreme Court. These are the actions that do not fall under the category of political question. These are the actions which we can describe as justiciable in character. What is one example? The right of the respondent to be violated.

The

right to be judged by a judge who is fair and who is impartial.

When

that right is violated, it is not included in the categorical political question. It

is justiciable. So that is the small exception that the Supreme Court can intervene, can pass upon the constitutionality of a particular action of the Senate impeachment. Court. But even then, pagkat tinrace niyo po yung evolution nung

political question doctrine,

nag-evolve po yan eh.

Dahil doon sa kaso nung Habiliana,

Habiliana case, kung saan na dinisisyonan.

Valid ba itong ratification ng 73 Constitution o hindi?

Doon po sa kaso na iyon, napakaraming opinion ang nakita nating binigay ng iba't ibang mga justices. Sa bandang huli, ang naging hatol, walang balakid para sa enforcement doon kaso. In other words,

It

was

not decided because they invoked the political question doctrine. And that is one of the reasons why our people, the people of the Philippines, were dissatisfied.

The change of government, people's revolution, and so on and so forth. At nagkaroon tayo ng bagong Constitution, itong 87 Constitution.

Yung

pinag-uusapan itong 87 Constitution, of course, they have to rebalance. The powers of government in light of what happened during martial law. Nirebalance nila yung powers ng executive, ng legislative, at ng judiciary. At ang ginawa nila, isang ginawa nila ay palakasin yung poder ng judiciary to review. Paano nila pinalakas yun? Nilagay nila yung praise. Grave abuse of discretion. Dinagdag nila yun para ang Korte Suprema ay makapasok sa mga kaso kahit na slightly political. So nagkaroon ng puwag po para ang Supreme Court ay hindi batanggihan yung mga kaso on the ground that this is a political question case.

So, that is the evolution of the Political Question Doctrine. Makikita po natin itong evolution na ito pag umiimposahan natin yung pag-aaral natin magmula sa Villana case hanggang sa mga kaso ngayon. Ano po ang generalization dyan? Dahil po doon sa price grave abuse of discretion, ang Korte Suprema ay... ay nakaka-intervene even in some cases involving political questions. Pero ang approach ng Supreme Court dyan is a tiptoe approach. Hanggang maaari, hindi sila nag-intervene sa political question doctrine. Yan po ang standing, yan po ang evolution ng political question doctrine. And that will settle. Yung question, ano ba ang limit ng kapangyarihan ng Seneta Impeachment Court? Ganun po yun.

Thank you po, former Justice Puno. May I direct my next question to Associate Justice Azcuna. Sir, do you share the same view or opinion na leaving to the decision or to interpret the two-thirds of all members to this impeachment court?

Tama po ba yun?

Did you say na kami ang magde-desisyon at mag-interpret dun sa two-thirds na sinasabi po ng Constitution?

You're asking whether the decision of the Senate interpreting the two-thirds threshold is appealable? to the Supreme Court? Is that your question?

Sort of, sir. Pero my question is, are you leaving that to us? I mean, as a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, the decision to interpret or to decide amongst ourselves, ano po ba talagang threshold and what does two-thirds mean when it comes to the threshold po, Associate Justice Azcuna?

What is my opinion?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

The provision has to be studied according to its origin. And it was not us in 1987 who drafted it that way. It came from 1935. As far back as 1935, nakalagay na po dyan two-thirds of all the members of the National Assembly. Kaya po sa tingin ko talagang deliberate constitutional design yan to make it hard for the process to result in a conviction of the respondent. It's possible but it's hard. In fact, we made it easier in the sense that we changed the three-fourths to two-thirds. But we made the two-thirds based on The number of senators existing, not those who are present. There is another way of doing it, but that's not how we did it. In Indonesia, for example, they say two-thirds of those present, but two-thirds of all must be present. So they have two two-thirds. First, two-thirds of all the members must be present. That's the quorum. Once two-thirds of the members, at least two-thirds are present, then two-thirds of those present can convict. Doon po sa Indonesia. But in Korea, kasi I was studying all the Southeast Asians, their presidential system. Sa South Korea po, kagaya sa atin, two-thirds of those members, all the members, sakaligay all, two-thirds of all the members of their National Assembly.

must vote in favor of conviction of their president. So yung two-thirds of all po talagang ibig sabihin all the members and the only instances where the members will not be counted is when they're no longer members. That is if they die, they are removed or they resign. But if they are merely suspended, or they cannot function, or they are sick, or they are abroad, but they remain members of the Senate, kasama po sa computation. Why? Because we want the threshold to be firm. We want the threshold to be big, broad-based. Otherwise... So physics po, if your center of gravity falls outside your base, your building will topple. So the intention of this supermajority threshold is to establish a broad base for removing very high officials, especially those who have been nationally elected. So it's a balancing between accountability and also the permanence of the...

Thank

you po, Associate Justice Azcuna. In the interest of time, and I'm running out of time, I have one last quick question lang po. Sana po I can get from you quick answers. I'll start with you, Associate Justice Azcuna. Is our Constitution perfect? Or is it flawed? Or it needs fine-tuning? Kasi...

Lower courts interpret this. When it gets to you, ibang interpretation niyo and you say this is final. Pwede pang mag-motion for reconsideration. Is it flawed, sir? Is it perfect or it just needs fine-tuning, sir?

The question is whether the constitutes perfect. Perfect or flawed or needs fine-tuning.

Functioning. Fine-tuning. To tune it. Fine

tuning.

Para maging perfect po or maging maayos. Kasi iba-iba po yung interpretation. Sa lower court, ito po yung interpretation niya. Pagdating sa CA, ito po yung interpretation niya. Pagdating po sa inyo, hindi. Ito yung interpretation namin. I see. So,

what

is it, sir, in your opinion?

The varieties of interpretation cannot be avoided. But the final interpretation, will have to be the Supreme Court because according to Abelino versus Cuenco, while the Senate has the autonomy to decide its own internal proceedings, whether or not in exercising that autonomy they have done so in accordance with the Constitution is a legal question and the Supreme Court can intervene to interpret whether or not The Constitution was violated in the exercise of the autonomy of the Senate. So, while there may be different interpretations, including those of the Senate, the final interpretation on the two-thirds is, I think, with the Supreme Court.

Kaya nga po, let me go to former Chief Justice Panganiban, sir. Same question. Is it perfect?

You know, in this world, nothing is perfect. Only God is perfect. We are all trying to be perfect, and yet perfection goes up, up, up, up. We can never be perfect. Now, in the judiciary, the Supreme Court is the last resort. It is not perfect, but it is always right.

Sometimes also, it is not always right, but it's never wrong.

Thank you.

Thank you po. Lastly, Chief Justice Puno, sir. Is it perfect?

Napakadali pong sagutin yan. Tanong na yan eh. Is it perfect? Yung 87 Constitution. Hindi po perfect yan. Kanya tayo may article dyan on how to amend, change the Constitution.

Yan po yung function ng provision na yan. How to amend the Constitution. Dahil nga, ang premise niyan, hindi perfect yung Constitution. And there is no perfect Constitution in the world. Pero again, just for comparative studies, yung pong ibang Constitution, pag-aaralan ninyo.

May iba-iba nga klaseng provision on how to amend a constitution.

Mayroong provision doon na nagsasabi na itong mga provisions na ito hindi pwedeng palitan. Mayroon namang mga provisions na sinasabi kung papalitan natin yan, ganito ang boto, majority. Meron naman mga provisions na kung papalitan, supermajority ang kailangan. Kaya iba-iba pong klase yung amendatory provisions. Yung ibang Constitution, sinasabi, itong provisions, providing that government will be republican and democratic in character, hindi nyo pwedeng palitan yan. Pag pinalitan nyo yan, palitan na ang buong Constitution. Ngunit sa atin, yung amendment, simple lang, kahit anong provision, pwede palitan. Ang premise niya, the Constitution is not perfect.

of our invited amicus curiae because this is not a debate really between them. So kindly specify to whom you're addressing the questions so that they can answer individually as well as this is not an adversarial proceedings. We are merely hearing friends of the court as we have stated. Next to make his interjection would be the Senate President. Senate President Gachal Yanez, recognized.

You may proceed, sir.

You have no more than five minutes.

Thank you. Maraming salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer. At maraming salamat sa ating mga punong maestrado, kay CJ Panganiban, kay CJ Puno, kay Justice Azcuna sa inyong presensya at pagbibigay po ng kaalaman.

Marami pong natanong na. Marami po akong mga punto na gusto pang linawin at bigyan din.

Magtatanong po ako sa isang amicus ko, pero kung meron po kayong gustong dagdagan o tutulan o komento o may opinion na iba, wag kayong mahiyang magkomento dahil baka yung tanong ko, iba yung sagot ng iba, iba yung sagot ng iba. So gusto ko, let me direct my question to CJ Puno.

Ang pinag-uusapan nating provision sa Constitution ay yung Article 10, Section 3.6. At ang Senado ba ho ay meron ba ho siyang kapangyarihan na interpretahin itong provision na ito?

Opo,

hindi lang may kapangyarihan. Ang sinasabi sa ating Constitution, yung kapangyarihan na iyon ay SOL.

Kapangyarihan lang na pinagkaloob, binigay sa Senate Impeachment Court. Hindi binigay kahit sa anong husgado natin.

Nabanggit niyo na may mga political questions na iniiwan po ng Supreme Court para sa Senado. Itong pag-determine ng membro, dahil po dito sa provision, nakasulat two-thirds

of all members of the Senate. So yung word na member, yan po ngayon ang binubuo natin. Itong pag-determine kung sino po ang membro. Ito po ba ay isang political question?

Sa akin po palagay yan ay isang political question.

Mahirap iakyat yung question na yan sa Korte Suprema.

Paano ang gagawin ng Korte Suprema? Paano ang didesisyonan ng Korte Suprema yan? Kung ano ang tamang interpretasyon? In other words, sa language po ng mga abogado, ang issue, are there discoverable objective standards that the Supreme Court can follow in order to decide this case?

Iyan po ang authority ng Senate Impeachment Court to decide the issue, this issue. Ay una-una nando sa internal rules ng Senate, hindi po ba? O yung rules of the Senate, kung makikita niyo, hindi po sinasubmit yan sa Korte Suprema para pagtibayad ng Korte Suprema. That shows the independence of the Senate Impeachment Court even in the making of its internal rules.

Compare that with the internal rules of the other courts. Internal rules ng Sandiganbayan. Internal rules ng Court of Appeals. Lahat po yan sinusubite sa Supreme Court para pagtibayin. Dahil under sila ng Korte Suprema eh. Ang Senate Impeachment Court, hindi sila submit yung rules nila. for approval by the Supreme Court precisely because they are independent of the Supreme Court.

Hindi ba ho sa CJ Puno na yung dito po sa Article 10, klaro naman po all members at ngayon kasi ang mayroon tayong mga membro na naka-detain o nawawala pero membro praho rin sila.

In

that sense,

Sila po ba ay pwedeng maging, iyang situation na yan ay pwede hong maging political question kung sila po ay makakasama sa pagbilang sa denominator o pagbilang kung sino ang boboto? Ima ganun na situation?

As a general rule, yan ay political question.

Dahil that will involve a Policy considerations that will involve the exercise of wisdom of the members of the Senate Impeachment Court. Mare-review lang po yan kapagka yung naging kapasyahan ng Senate Impeachment Court ay lalabag halimbawa Doon sa karapatan ng isang respondent. Example, karapatan to have judges who are fair and impartial. Pag dumating po doon sa punto na iyon ay hindi na po political question iyon. That will be a violation of the due process clause of the Constitution. And the Supreme Court has definite standards to follow to decide cases involving violations of due process.

Salamat CJ Puno.

Itong susunod na tanong ko naman kay CJ Panganiban. Nabanggit niyo kanina na napakahalaga po yung truth and fairness. Nakita ko po doon sa presentation ninyo. Kung i-coconnect natin ito dito sa

Ang

sagot po dyan ay Kung sila po ay hindi naririto, ano man ang kanilang rason? Sila po ba ay nasa posisyon? Are they in a situation that they can deliver truth and fairness? Will they be in a position in the first place to know the truth?

I think that should be the question.

Are we or are they? Senator-judges, whatever be their situation, are they in a position to know the truth so that they can render a fair judgment? If they're not in a position to know the truth, then they should not dare vote and participate because that will be unfairness to our people. They were not in a position to know the truth. How can they render fairness to our people? Our people expects the Senate to act with truth and fairness. And those are the standards, simple standards. I said, I'm not going to the various kinds of interpretation of laws. I'm not going to ask you to follow the rules of court. I'm not going to ask you to follow the technicalities of the law. All I'm saying is, are you in a position to know the truth? And are you in

a position to render a fair judgment? I think that should be the test. Very simple.

Gusto ko makuha yung opinion nyo kung gagawa ng desisyon na kung yung mga membro na hindi nakaparticipate from day one all the way to the last day. Pwede tayo magkaroon ng sitwasyon na mayroong mga senator-judges na hindi talaga makakaparticipate from the opening to the closing on Judgment Day at hindi sila Bibilangin dun sa denominator or dun sa mga makakaboto. Yan ba ho ay violation ng Constitution? In your opinion, yan ba ho ay pwedeng may strike down ng Supreme Court?

Sa palagay ko po, maaring magkaroon ng ground for intervention by the Supreme Court if someone who remains a senator. Although he or she did not participate at all in the trial for one reason or another, but in counting the denominator, such person is not included while remaining a senator. Baka magkaroon ng defekto yung judgment, supposing there is a judgment of conviction based on 23 instead of 24. 2 thirds of 23. Palagay mo 15. So 15 votes to convict. And the Senate said convicted. Maari pong i-reverse ng Supreme Court yan dahil it is violation of the Constitution because it is not 2 thirds of all the members. So palagay ko lang po.

Maraming salamat po sa

I'll go back to Justice Puno and take note ko po, Justice Puno, CJ Puno, na nasabi niyo may contextual interpretation and then mayroong literal interpretation in the long school of thought na sinabi niyo. Kailan po dapat tignan ng Senado, sitting as an impeachment court, kung contextual siya or kung literal interpretation siya?

Ginagamit po natin yung literal. Kung yung provision ng Constitution na pinag-uusapan ay maliwanag, kung ito ay very clear, kung ito ay hindi susceptible to various interpretations.

Pero

kung

Hindi po ganung kaliwanag yung provision ng Constitution. Hindi po natin pwedeng gamitin yung textual, literal interpretation. We cannot interpret that Constitution in isolation from the other provisions of the Constitution. Dapat interpret natin yan in light of Other provisions of the Constitution which will throw light into the intent and purpose of the provision.

Kung yun pong sasabihin natin, we adopt the literal interpretation because the provision is very clear. Kung hindi very clear, you are making the question.

Lalong lalo na kung pinag-uusapan ay yung correct interpretation of the Constitution will affect so many rights. Hindi natin na-adopt yung literal interpretation kung iisa lang ang posibleng interpretation. Kung maraming posibleng interpretation, it is a better to adapt the contextual way of interpreting the Constitution. At

bakit si J. Puno na sabi niyo po itong two-thirds of all members dapat po contextual ang tingin ho ng Korte o ng Impeachment Court? Ano ba po yung mga ibang context within the Constitution na dapat hong tignan?

Your Honor, the mere fact that we are holding this session

demonstrates how complex is the interpretation of the Constitutional provisions involved.

Gagabitin lang natin yung literal interpretation kung yung meaning ng Constitution ay very, very clear. It is not subjected to any kind of debate. Kung sabihin natin...

We follow the literal interpretation. It's very clear. And yet, there are other interpretations. We are begging the question. And we do not like to be beggars when interpreting the Constitution.

Thank you, CJ. And lastly, kay CJ Panganiban. CJ Panganiban, magkakaroon po ng disisyon ang Korte. Later on, whether to sustain the decision of the presiding officer or not. Depende sa pag-process ng information na nakuha natin ngayong araw na ito galing sa inyong lahat. Tingin niyo fear ba na magkakaroon ng disisyon other than the decision ng presiding officer?

Impeachment Court

At majority vote lang po of those present. There being a quorum.

May quorum po kayo ngayon. Nag-roll call kayo eh. That means majority of those present can reverse, modify, or agree with the decision or the ruling of the presiding officer. As a matter of fact, even that ruling is what we call, as an example, temporary ruling. Pwede rin niyong i-reverse ang sarili niyo before voting eh.

Sapagkat tentative lang po yun. It is as tentative as the ruling of our presiding officer. Presiding officer can change his mind and change his ruling. In the same manner, you can now vote and later on you might change your mind. It is different from a final decision of conviction or acquittal. That is final. But everything else would be

tentative.

Is it still in line with the principle of truth and fairness?

Yes, of course. You know already, you've heard us. You've heard us, you've conducted the hearing, you've asked questions, as a matter of fact. Therefore, you have already processed this question. As a matter of fact, you went beyond processing it among yourselves. You've invited the so-called friends of the court. Kami po'y talagang kaibigan ng ninyo at tinatawag ay Amici Cureza. Tinanong ko pa nga yung pronunciation ng mga Latin words eh. Yun daw po ang Latin words. The accent is always on the first syllable. So we say Amicus.

Some we say Obiter. First question. Hindi po Amicus. Amicus.

To prepare for this hearing. Kaya bagaman dumating lang ako nung isang araw galing sa Madrid at meron po akong official din naman ginawa doon, eh tinawag po ako ni Sekretary Bantug.

Hindi ako makahindi sapagkat kinamit niya ang pangalan ng ating presidente at ng ating presiding officer.

Being

a good citizen, I had to come here. Maski pupuyat pa ako. Sa pagkat nagising ako nino mag alas 13, kaya nag-golpre lang po ako bago ako bumunta rito. But kidding aside, yes, you are ready, I think. If you feel you want to vote, you may. And you cannot be accused of not thinking about processing your judgment or your ruling. As I said, even the presiding officer, I hope, will avoid a vote and change his mind. Maraming

salamat po. Maraming salamat to Justice Ascuna, to CJ Panganiban, at to CJ Puno. Maraming salamat po sa inyo. Before

I recognize, since my name was mentioned, wala po sa patigasan ng ulo ito. Sa palagay at pananaw ko, applicable po dito, CJ Panganiban, yung binanggit niyo, that math is exact in the abstract but not in reality. Pag pinalitan ko po yung aking pasya, meron pa rin po mag-aapila at pagbabotohan pa rin po namin ito sa dulo. So hindi po namin maiwasan ng boto. Ano man ang maging kapasyahan ko po kaugnay ng bagay na ito. Dahil sa realidad, yun po ang mangyayari. Senator-Judge Soto is recognized for his manifestation.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I do not have a question. I would want to extend our debt of gratitude to the friends of the Court. And then, perhaps... Inform

the

body and the public that the Senate is in receipt of a voluntary submission of the position paper or memorandum of law from Father Angelio Aquino, the Dean of Graduate School of Law from Zambeda University. So may I suggest that we insert it into the records of the impeachment court, although it is already posted in the Senate.

We

have already done that, Senator Judge Soto. Yesterday, the Chair ordered the Clerk of Court to furnish the parties with a copy of that position paper of Dean Aquino as well as the Senator Judges and upload it in the Senate website.

Very good. Thank you very much.

Next would be Senator Judge Lacson.

You may proceed sir when you're ready. You have no more than five minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. First of all, this is a historic day and much credit should go to the Presiding Officer. and the Senate President for making this possible. Taking the initiative to invite no less than three chiefs of justice of the Supreme Court and one associate justice. All eminent members, former eminent members of the Court. Now, my question is in relation to that statement. Dahil yung sa grave abuse of discretion. Chief Justice Panganiban, with the initiative taken by the Impeachment Court to hear and learn for our guidance and reference the opinions of four much respected, learned and experienced former Supreme Court Justices, help shield the Senate as an Impeachment Court from being accused of committing grave abuse of discretion.

I will dare ask this question kasi hindi naman kayo mako-compromise kasi you're no longer members of the court.

Makakatulong po ba ito na somehow yung ma-accused kami later on, if it comes to that, na kami nag-commit ng grave abuse of discretion? Kasi I think, sasagutin ko na rin partly yung aking tanong, meron kaming due diligence eh. We took time to listen to eminent people like you. Thank you po.

Mr. Presiding Officer, may I answer the question? Yes,

CJ Panginoon.

Opo, I think this is a very wise, prudent move on your part to call on alleged experts.

You may delete the word alleged, CJ.

Kasi po, yun na sinabi nyo. Kaya alleged. Anyway, seriously, yes, I think that you have been very prudent. Your questions are very piercing, intelligent, enlightening, edifying. And we are here to give you our honest opinion on what courses of action are open to you. As I said, you are the Supreme Court of Impeachment.

Your will shall prevail. In our case, sabi ninyo, friends kami. E sumobro na po tayo sa oras. Siguro po alas dos hindi pa. Tapos na.

Siguro po by this time hindi lang kami friends. Sweetheart na kami.

Thank you, Chief Justice. Okay, Justice Sascuna. Let us, with your indulgence, I'd like to stretch our imagination further. Suppose, alimbawa pong Siam. Sa mga present members ng Senate, 24 po kami, eh siya may na-stranded sa Middle East dahil sa protracted na gyera at hindi talaga makalabas dun, hindi makabalik dito. So wala pong magawa yung Senado as an impeachment court na pilitin sila para mag-attend dito, mag-attend ng trial at mag-render ng desisyon. May sense pa po ba na ituloy pa rin namin ang impeachment trial? Alam naman naming labil lima na lang kami. So ito yung issue ng threshold, meaning yung denominator, immovable pa rin po ba yun given that situation?

Members pa rin po sila. Let me be clear, hindi po sila namatay, hindi sila nag-resign, hindi sila na-expel. Nananatiling miyembro pero hindi sila makaalis sa Iran.

Ilan sila? Siyempo. Kaya labil lima na lang po naiwan. So, ilan ang natira? 15 po. Kulang ng isa para mag-convict. Kulang

ng isa. Okay. So, you have a situation where you have 15 remaining but there are still 24 senators. Members. So, obviously, there can be no conviction based on the two-thirds of all the members. What will happen there is

In my opinion, it's similar to a Supreme Court decision where they fail to get the necessary vote in order to declare a law unconstitutional. So they will say petition denied for lack of sufficient number of votes required under the Constitution. So in that case, under your rules kasi. If you cannot get the 16, it's an acquittal. A judgment of acquittal will be entered. So in that event, a judgment of acquittal will be entered, not because of a vote for acquittal prevailing, but simply because of failure to get the 16 votes minimum necessary in order to convict. So ganun po mangyari na. Kung ganun po.

Rare occasion, rare event, which in that case is a price we pay for the internal check of a supermajority threshold that there are occasions when accountability through impeachment will fail. But there are other modes of accountability. Criminal case for instance, forfeiture of cases, and ultimately the ballot box by the people. So the impeachment is not the only mode of accountability.

Doon po ako pupunta naman kay Chief Justice Panganiban. Saan po mapupunta yung fairness sa Pilipino people kung walang mapapanagot sa accountability? Hindi ko po sinasabing... Guilty yung respondent dito. Ito po yung hypothetical. Saan po tayo gagawit para ma-achieve yung fairness? Kung alam naman natin na lalabin lima yung present available, yung capacitated na membro. Kasi siya, incapacitated eh. Hindi makarating dito. So I think, ito po yung opinion ko lamang, hindi po ako nakipag-debate, na yun yung magiging unfair tayo sa Filipino people. Ayon po ako sa inyong opinion na

kailangan magkaroon ng desisyon sapagkat yung labil limang natitira, pinaniwalaan ko na mahal pa rin nila ang ating bayan at sila'y nakapagbibigay ng katotohanan at kapantay-pantayan sa ating kababayan. Sampu po sa kanila is two-thirds.

Unlikely na siyam yung hindi talaga maka-attend. Pero babalikan ko yung 1987 na yung premiers. What was the political backdrop when you were crafting the 1987 Constitution? Palagay ko po hindi nyo na-anticipate o na-pursue na meron palang isang magtatago, meron palang dalawang makukulong na walang bail, at meron isang Nasa ibang bansa. Palay ko hindi niyo po ito na-foresee at that time. So, ako po'y sasangayunan ko yung kay Chief Justice Puno na hindi pwedeng immovable kasi nag-evolve po yung sitwasyon, yung circumstances, pumapasok mga bago. At kung tayo'y napaka-rigid at ang plain language, yung textual meaning ng ating Constitution, eh talagang nakapick sa 16. Yung two-thirds dinify na natin bilang 16 na hindi na natin inantala na meron palang sitwasyon na mangyayaring ganito. E babalik ulo kay CJ Panganiban yung fairness.

So, yun lang po.

Fairness can be rendered by two-thirds of those present. It's not necessary that 16 should vote in favor because it's impossible to get 16.

Fairness cannot be rendered nugatory simply because of circumstances beyond the control of our people. Our people deserve still to be given justice because the 15 present can still act and render justice and be able to discipline whoever is to be disciplined. I believe that the senators have been empowered by our Constitution to act. And our Constitution trusts their judgment. As I kept saying in the past, if our Constitution, therefore our people who ratified the Constitution, wanted the Supreme Court to settle this question, then it should have provided that the Constitution should be the tribunal that will decide impeachment cases. Hindi po ganun eh. Ang sinabi ng Constitution, mga Senador, kayo po ang mag-de-decide. Kayo po ang hari rito. Kayo po ang masusunod. Maraming salamat po.

Ang huling tanong ko po, Mr. President Officer, for my education, at what point does the Senate or impeachment court's interpretation of its voting threshold cross the line from non-justiciable political question into a justiciable controversy? At one point po yan.

Alam po nyo, political question means a question that should be decided by the people. When a question should be decided by the people, then the Supreme Court should be hands off. That's what's meant by a political question. When a matter is raised to the Supreme Court and it involves wisdom of an act, whether the Supreme Court Agrees with it or not is immaterial. What's important is does it have the power under the Constitution to decide that problem. But if it is a political problem, meaning that it should be decided by our people, then the Supreme Court will be hands-off. Ganun po ang political question.

Kinanong ko lang po yan kasi yung manifestation ni Atty. Poa.

I

don't know the background. I'll just give you in general. I don't want to give an opinion where I do not know the facts. But hypothetically, without referring to The good attorney Poa, because I do not know specifically what it is. In the same manner, I think, you should not decide something where you do not know the facts. It's just the point that I'm driving at. If you do not know the facts, how can you decide? That's why you've got to be present here. Not because you are prejudiced against those who are absent, but because the circumstances are such that they will not be able to know the truth in the same manner. that you will be able to know the truth. Now, how can a question be raised in the Supreme Court? A question may be raised in the Supreme Court, as I said, based on the power of the Supreme Court to strike down grave abuse of discretion of any branch or instrumentality of government. Yun po language ng Constitution. To strike down grave abuse of discretion amounting to Lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any instrumentality of the government. And the Senate is an instrumentality of government. If the Senate commits grave abuse of discretion, then the Supreme Court will have to take action. Not because the Supreme Court is higher than the Senate, but because it is just exercising a power lodged in it by the Constitution. Yun po ang threshold. The threshold is, was there grave abuse of discretion? Did you capriciously arrive at this decision? It's a question that even us disagree on.

My good colleague Justice Ascuna has one view. I have another view. If we cannot agree, how can you be faulted for debating in something that the Supreme Court may disagree? It's not a question of the Supreme Court disagreeing with you. The question is, did you commit grave abuse of discretion? Were you capricious? Were you whimsical? Were you arbitrary in making your decision? If you were debating about it, and in fact, you called on the sweethearts of the Supreme Court

to

help you with this, short of telling you what the decision should be, because we cannot do that. We can only say, you decide on the basis of the mandate given to you by our people.

Supreme Court should not intervene. As a matter of fact, from my personal point of view, I think it should not interfere. Only in super grave abuse of discretion should it interfere because you are exercising a specific power. The Constitution said, sole judge. Kayo lang ang magdi-desisyon. Kaya po, pagbutihin niyo lang iyon. Huwag niyo lang gawing capricious. Huwag lang ka-arbitrary.

Papasa po yan. Maski ang Supreme Court may disagree with what you are doing. It's not a question of whether the Supreme Court agrees with you or not. You are given that mandate, that power, that duty by our Constitution. It's not the Supreme Court that's being given that duty or function. Not even the power. Only when you commit grave abuse of discretion will the Supreme Court come in. Maraming salamat po.

So that we can call the session hopefully at 4.

So that you can still catch up with your 5-5.30 5-5.30 appointment, CJ Pangani.

Pwede po bang malis ng 3 o'clock?

Yes, we'll try to finish by 3 o'clock.

Ang totoo po ay naka-jet lag pa ako.

Salamat po.

We'll try to wind

up before that

time.

Just one question, Chief Justice Art, Chief Justice Rene, Justice Adolfo. There have been some commentary that the threshold vote, changing the rules, and therefore the due process. Requirement of the respondent and actually even the prosecution. When you change the rules in the middle of the proceedings, maapektuhan yung due process clause kasi dapat hindi binabago habang nagkakaroon ng paglilitis. Would you care to comment?

Totoo ba pag halimbawa pinagbotohan yung unang ruling baguhin yung unang ruling ng ating presiding officer ay meron ng paglabag sa due process ng nasasakdal o yung responded?

Wala pa pong paglabag sapagkat hindi pa kayo bumaboto eh. In other words, it has not been implemented. Wala pa po hindi pa nini-implement. Kaya... Itong inyong ginagawa nga eh, you are anticipating the issue, the problem. So commendably, you are doing this meeting so that you cannot be accused of grave abuse of discretion kung saka-sakali bang dumating ngayon. Maaari pong magpalitan ang isip niyo ngayon pagkat hindi pa naman nangyayari eh. Hindi pa kayo nagbubutuhan eh. Wala pa pong butuhan. Kaya there is no grave abuse of discretion in my humble opinion as of now. Mahirap po yung grave abuse of discretion eh. Parang pinapanting na kayo nun, di ba? Imagine, you're abusing your discretion. Not just abusing, rather your discretion. You are gravely abusing your discretion. Kung mamagaw lang kayo, parang sinabi na ng anak niyo, eh masyado naman yan, di mo lang ako pinakinggan. Kaya hindi pwede yung penalty. Grave abuse of discretion yan. Hindi po ba? You just make that example, your children. What do you do with your children when there is supposed to be some penalty to be imposed? Pakikinggan nyo muna sila. Hindi po ba? Hindi nyo sila dadalit sa Supreme Court. At hindi rin sasabihin sa inyo ng mga anak ninyo, eh di ka naman huwes. Datay eh.

Engineer ka lang.

Teacher ka lang. Hindi ka naman abogado. Hindi po pwede sapagkat all of us, citizens, render justice once in a while to our friends, to our family, to our acquaintances. We all render judgments. We all render opinions.

And by the way, I mean, Senator, you called me CJ Art, so I may be able to call you Senator Kiko.

Yes, yes, Chief.

Well, I've seen you in action. When I was incumbent Chief Justice and Chairman of the JBC, you were representing the Senate in the JBC. And I must say, without any qualms about, that you have been an excellent member of the JBC in representing the Senate. And I think that you should have been in the Court. As a matter of fact.

Salamat po. Maraming salamat po. Thank you for your kind words. Senator, ah, Senator Tuloy.

Senator Rene Puno. The same question, if I may be allowed. The question actually is on the issue of the threshold because our presiding officer has ruled that it is 16. Now, if we reconsider that ruling and decide as a court that it is lower than 16 or if we decide that it is 16, walang problema. In other words, there were no changes. But if we decide it's lower, I go back to that question. Isn't that a denial of the respondent's right to due process that the rule was changed in the middle of the proceeding?

Thank you, Your Honor. I do not mind the prophecy.

Ang

sagot ko po ay it's

a big question. When you say changing the rule,

wala pa naman talagang rule.

At saka kung anong ginagawa po ay tinatalakay kung ano talaga yung meaning ng particular rule na yun ay hindi po changing the rule yun. Ay tinatama lang yung...

Dapat na magiging interpretasyon ng rule. Lalong-lalong na yung isang rule na napakaraming reasonable interpretations.

Number two, of course, at this point, there is no way of raising this particular issue to the Supreme Court.

Merong requirement po doon na ripeness of the issue.

Ay

hindi natin masasabi na itong issue na ito is already ripe for adjudication by the Supreme Court. Naguusapan pala ngayon, hindi natin alam kung anong magiging boto.

Tsaka ang isa pang dahilan, Dapat yung aakyat sa Supreme Court mas demonstrate an injury.

Paano mong i-demonstrate yung injury na yun? Kung wala pang final interpretation yung Senate. Wala pang applicability ito.

Baka yung bago nga interpretation ay makinabag pa yung magre-raise nung constitutional issue na yun. Kanya palagay ko po hindi tatagapin ng Korte Suprema itong issue na ito sa panahon ito. It's a matter of perfect timing.

Chief Justice. Would Justice Adolf be willing to... I

fully concur with my colleagues, Your Honor, because the question of the interpretation of the two-thirds is a procedural matter. And procedural matters can be retroactive. There is no vested right to a procedure. So the rule is, if it is procedural, it can be applied to pending cases. So even if the trial has already started, you are midway through the trial, and you change the interpretation of the presiding officer, I think there is no violation of due process. There is no vested right that has been violated because all these matters are procedural. Thank you.

eminent jurists and maraming salamat sa oras ninyo. Malaking bagay po. Minomonitor din po natin sa social media. Marami po nakikinig sa inyong mga at maraming nagiging tagahanga ninyo. Baka sakali dahil dito sa ano na ito eh, baka maging senator ang ilan sa inyo. Liro lang po. Maraming salamat po. Salamat.

Bago ko po kilalaanin ang susunod, ang pangunahing rason kung bakit gamitin ko po yung salita, nangahas ako na magbigay ng kapasyahan kaugnay sa threshold vote ay upang ito ay sana may umakyat at hilingin ng kapasyahan ng Korte Suprema para maging pinal o ngayon, na inaapila, anuman na maging kapasyahan ng Senado, ito'y maiyakyat din sa Korte Suprema dahil ang pinaka sa personal, ayaw kong makitang mangyari ay Pagkatapos po namin itong pagbotohan, matapos ang ebidensya ng magkabilang panig, nagpasya kami, hindi pa rin po yun yung tuldok sa isyong ito ng impeachment. May aakit sa Korte Suprema pa at magsasabing sino ba nanalo sa kanilang dalawa. Sana kung sakasakali, anuman pasya ng Senado, ay maging pinal o mapagpasya ng pinal ng Korte Suprema upang sa gayon kapag ito'y pinagbotohan sa katapusan ng kasong ito. Yun na rin po yung katapusan ng usaping ito. At hindi na po ito ahaba pa nang ahaba nang tila walang katapusan. I don't think our country and people deserve that for this to be prolonged than it should be. Anyway, Senator-Judge Ontiveros is recognized.

Kung Mr. President,

ayun po ako sa sinabi niyo. Salamat po, CJ Panginoon. Senator-Judge Riza is recognized. You have no more than five minutes, ma'am.

Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer. Kasama po ng aking mga kasamang Senators-Judge, marami pong salamat sa inyong kasama si CJ Davide, pagpapayo sa amin ngayong maghapon. Retired na po kayo, pinagtrabaho pa po namin kayo. Kaya maraming salamat po sa inyong patuloy na pagmamahal kay Inang Bayan.

Retired po, pero hindi retarded.

Obvious na obvious po sa bawat isang nanonood. Hindi lang po kami sa floor. Lahat po sa gallery at dun po sa livestream din po. Unahin ko na po yung pangalawang tanong ko sana dahil para kay CJ Panganiban bago po kayo makaalis. So, paano po yung gagawin sa mga senators-judge na nakapag-oath pero sa anumang dahilan ay willfully, continuously, hindi pumapasok, hindi lumalahok dito sa impeachment trial. Sa tingin niyo po ba ay kasama pa rin po sila sa denominator at bibilangin po?

Well, unang-una po talagang sinabi ko na yun na kung hindi sila

Naririto, kasama ninyo, inoobserbahan yung mga testigo, ini-examine yung mga dokumento, hindi sila nakapagbibigay ng tamang husga. Kaya po, kung ako sila, sapagkat because

they are not in a position to render judgment, a truthful and fair judgment,

I

would even voluntarily Inhibit, deceased from voting.

Kaya po, ang sakin po ay practical sa tao. Hindi na po ako nagsasight ng mga cases sa Supreme Court. There are many, pro and contra. But I appeal to your sense of right and wrong. Yun po ay napag-aralan natin sa elementary school pa eh. Right conduct, hindi po ba?

Yun po ang akin. Sapagkat taal po sa ating mga Kababayan ang humanap ng katotohanan at humanap din ng pantay-pantay na paghusga. Truth and fairness. Dalawa lang naman po ang sinasabi ko. Wala po akong masyadong requirements.

If you can render your decision based on truth and fairness, then so render that judgment. If you cannot, then you should be counted because you will be You will be diminishing the effort and the voice of those who are here present trying to find the truth and trying to be fair.

At saka po, tapos na kayo?

So, liban sa mag-voluntarily inhibit o desist sila sa pagboto, hindi na po bibilangin sa denominator? Dapat

po. Sa aking opinion, hindi na dapat kasama sa denominator.

Hindi po kagaya niyo para present kayo. Kaya nung ako po yun nasa Supreme Court, I've never missed a day of session when I was there. The only time that I missed is when I am abroad on official mission. Kaya din po sa Inquirer. Pagkat pinasukang ko maging columnist, eh so far, for the last almost 20 years that I've been writing, I've never missed a single. A single. Column. Pinadadala ko po maski abroad ako. Maski may sakit ako, gumagawa ako. Sapagkat yun ang inaasahan po sa akin ng mga nagbabasa from my readers. Same manner, I think, our people expect the same kind of diligence, the same kind of faithfulness. Hindi po sa nagyayabang ako kung dinasabi ko lang ito sapagkat sinasabi ko nga na lahat po tayo merong taal na Talino. Meron taal na pagmamahal sa ating bayan na kayo'y magsisilbe na inaasahan sa pagsagot sa inaasahan ng ating bayan.

Maraming salamat po CJ Panganiban. At habang nandito pa kayo baka gusto nyo ring tugunan yung mga tanong na itatanong ko naman sa ibang amicus curae.

Maski po sa private, pwede ako sumagot?

Ano po, sir?

Maski po sa pribado na conversation natin, pwede ako sumagot?

Dalaga naman po kayo.

Can you confirm?

Ibang mga tanong pa po ang itatanong ko, Mr. Presiding Officer, sa ating mga amicus curae. At ipagpapasalamat ko po.

Hindi ko po nasabi. Binata rin ako.

I'm sure marami pong nag-note niyan, CJ, panganiban. Salamat po. Kay CJ Puno naman po. At kung gusto nyo rin pong dagdagan yung sagot ninyo sa tanong ko kay CJ Panganiban kung mayroon. Pero ito po yung unang tanong ko po sa inyo, CJ Puno. Paano naman po kapag hindi nakapag-oath? Halimbawa po may Senator-Judge na hindi nakapag-oath, kasama ba sila sa denominator? Ano pong palagay nyo doon?

Dadagdagan ko lang po yung

Pananaw dun sa unang question. Sige po.

Salamat po.

At yung first question at second question refers to an oath. So we have to determine what is the function of an oath.

So dun po sa first case, kahit na nag-oath na yung membro,

Ngunit walang nakakaalam kung nasaan siya at he has continuously absented himself. I would like to think that the Abelino case can be cited as a precedent to determine his status.

Yung Abelino case used the test quote those beyond the

coercive

power jurisdiction of the Senate Impeachment Court. So maring pong using that test for that specific purpose ay Marlin yung nga i-determine kung ano yung status niya. Kung nga i-sasali pa siya doon sa 2-3rds vote.

Ano na nga po yung... Yung isa

po ay

kung hindi po nakapag-oath, isasama din po ba sa denominator, bibilangin?

Bakit po siya hindi nakapag-oath at... Sa

kung anumang circumstance siya po.

Mahalaga po ang malaman natin kung anong dahilan at kung ano na yung stage ng impeachment proceedings.

At siguro isa pa rin tanong dyan, ano ba yung value na ibibigay natin sa oath?

Affirmation. Ang pagtingin ba natin dyan ay liberal or strict? Mari ba nating gamitin yung oath niya bilang senador? Pareho po ba yung teksto fundamentally nung oath niya as a senator at yung oath as a judge?

Mga yun po yung mga circumstances na dapat siguro timbagin ng Senate Impeachment Tribunal.

Salamat po CJ Puno. Isa namang tanong po kay Justice Azcuna at gayon din po kung gusto nyo rin mag-comment sa mga na unang tanong ko kina CJ Panganiban at saka CJ Puno.

Sabi niyo po, two-thirds vote is needed para hindi po maabuso ng isang small majority ang kapangyarihan at makapag-impeach na lang ng basta. At ang ibig sabihin ng all ay all 24. Kung uunawain ko po, an inflexible concept of two-thirds is a check on power. Sa isang banda naman po, Well, I can also imagine a situation where say a president who is himself or herself being impeached biglang magpakulong ng walang basehan ng sabihin natin sampung tao para hindi maabot ang 16. So in that case, inflexibility benefits power. Hindi po kaya mas mahalaga na mayroong set rules?

The situation you are referring to is the same

because as long as the members of the Senate remain the same, the denominator would still be the total number. Regardless of who is being tried, whether it's the President or the Vice President, the fear behind the threshold mechanism still operates even if it's the President who is being tried. As long as there is a possibility of depriving a portion of the Senators from participating in order to lower the threshold then the fear remains and therefore the philosophy behind the threshold should be maintained even at the expense of occasionally something perhaps accountability might fail. On some occasions, because of the insistence of an unalterable concept of threshold majority.

That is the trade-off. Because if you have a flexible threshold, let's say you base it on only those who are present and who can participate. Then, as I said, you can have a situation where you have only 20 participating or even 16 participating and you have only two-thirds of 16. I think that would be about 10 is enough to convict a president. So that's too small a majority.

Just barely a few votes above 1.5 plus 2. So I think, even less, I think that it is better to maintain a fixed threshold regardless of who is being tried rather than a variable one because a variable one can be made, manipulated to reach. Almost a simple majority and so the idea of a super majority as a threshold disappears. The more senators are being prevented from participating for one reason or another while still being senators.

The other

way of course is to remove them as senators. The only problem is that also needs two-thirds vote of all the senators.

So kahit po sa pangalawang sitwasyon na nilarawan ko na yung inflexibility ay mapapakinabangan ng isang makapangyarihang national leader that we should be willing to pay that painful price?

Palagay ko po the occasional miscarriage of justice in that case is a price you pay for Not allowing the legislative branch to dominate the other branches by threatening removal, easy removal of the president, for instance.

So that's the philosophy behind a higher threshold. In fact, in the United States, even with their threshold...

Two-thirds of those present, I think there has been no precedent removed by impeachment in all its history. There were only, I think, 21 officials who were removed, 12 of them federal judges, but precedent never. So, I think... President Quezon also did not want it to be easy for the National Assembly to remove him. So, he made sure that it became three-fourths of all the members in order to remove the President.

Maraming salamat po, Justice Azcuna. Huling tanong ko siguro, Mr. Presiding Officer, bukod sa kung gustong may idagdag si CJ Panganiban sa mga tanong ko sa dalawa pang amicus kurie o may gustong idagdag si CJ Puno sa tanong ko kay Justice Azcuna, isang huling tanong po kay CJ Panganiban. Naku po, alas tres na. Huling-huli na lang po if you care to give even a brief response, CJ. Ano po yung wisdom ng Saligang Batas kung kaya ang pag-assign sa impeachment trials ay sa Senado at hindi po sa Korte? Sa tingin niyo po bakit ito ginawa?

Maganda po ang tanong na yan sapagkat sinabi ko na nauna I mentioned earlier that in its wisdom the Constitution lodged in the Senate the work, the power, and the duty. of conducting trial and deciding impeachment cases. I think it's because this is largely a political matter. It's largely a question of whether a high official, a very high official, president, vice president, supreme court justices, heads of our independent commissions, the ombudsman. have committed a betrayal of public trust in general.

It is lodged in the political wisdom of a political body like the Senate. The Senate is composed of members who are elected nationally in the same manner that presidents and vice presidents are elected nationally. Therefore, they carry the mandate of all the people, all the electorate. and as distinguished from the Supreme Court. Even when I come from there, I know that we have limitations. Sometimes we do not understand the labyrinthine of political questions. We sit as it were described as gods perched in Mount Olympus. The gods of Padre Faura. Padre Faura, okay. We do not mix. Well, we used not to mix, although now we mix after we are retired from our purchase there. You see, the Supreme Court, I think, will not be in a good position, not as good as the Senate in taking on the question of removing the highest officials of our country. Of course, We can remove them in the sense that they commit crimes where the penalty involves disqualification. That's another matter. But impeachment, the threshold is just the number of votes but not the kind of standard. In criminal cases,

the standard is different. Proof beyond reasonable doubt as determined by the rules and the technicalities of the rules of court and other procedures. It's very strict because even in this AI age, there is no substitute for cross-examination to determine whether a witness is telling the truth or not.

While that is lodged in the courts in general and in particular in the Supreme Court, it's not lodged to the Senate because it's not in the business of the Senate to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Your mandate is to determine whether in your opinion, as representatives of the people, a certain high official, I'm not particularly referring to the Vice President here, whether high official deserve to stay. I think the senators being nationally elected are better equipped to determine the political question of whether a high official deserves to stay in power after having been charged properly by the House of Representatives. Remembering that the House of Representatives is also composed of representatives of our people.

So, it's a political exercise. Impeachment is a political exercise. The charges are prepared not by the physical office, not by the Department of Justice, not by the Ombudsman, but by the newly elected representatives of our people, the House of Representatives. And therefore, the decision should also be made by the newly elected. representatives of our people and who else can do that but the senators, the honorable senators of our country. Maraming salamat po.

Salamat din po ng marami, CJ Panganiban. So sa huling 53 seconds ko, itanong ko lang kung meron kong gustong idagdag si CJ Puno at Justice Azcuna dun sa mga tanong ko sa ibang amicus curiae.

Justice Azcuna. Same question?

Bakit

Senado ang ginigyan ng kapangyarihan? Tanging kapangyarihan.

Well, the origin of impeachment in England was the practice of Parliament to remove ministers of the King because they could not remove the King himself.

introduced a practice called impeachment which allowed them to remove the ministers of the king. So it's really a legislative power in origin. And we just followed that. The U.S. followed that and then we followed the U.S. And the underlying reason for that, of course, is political. It's a political check on the part of one branch of government against the other.

It's a counterbalance. If we give it to the judiciary, for instance, it will make the judiciary too powerful. It already has the power to decide all cases and then it will have a power to remove constitutional offices. So I think it's a better place where it is, in the hands of the Senate. And because of this hybrid, it's not purely judicial, it's a hybrid exercise, partly political, partly judicial. So I think it is correctly placed by our constitutions, past and present, in the legislative body.

Salamat po, Justice Azcuna, former Constitutional Commissioner. Maraming salamat po sa lahat ng ating mga...

Thank you, Senator Judge Riza. With the indulgence of Senator Judge Padilla, before I excuse CJ Panganiban, with your indulgence, Senator Judge Padilla, just one question, sir. Since you mentioned math is exact in the abstract but not in reality, and your position is the denominator can be lowered. In the example of Senator Judge Lacson, he said 15, and you said... Clearly, two-thirds is 10. If it's 24, then clearly, two-thirds is 16. What if it's 23 and two-thirds is 15.33? What if it's 22 and two-thirds is 14.66? The question, CJ Pangliban, is how do we treat the decimal points? The higher number or the lower number and are there precedents on this?

In math. With the abstract science of math, we round off. We round off. If it is more than half, then we round off to the higher number. If it's less than half, we round off to the lower number in the abstract

math. Pero

sa katotohanan po, mahirap gawin yun. Sabi ko nga, one drop of water plus one drop of water can be considered one bigger drop of water. Reality po yun eh.

But that's the reality also created by your moving two-thirds. If it's a moving two-thirds and it's not based on 24 which is a fixed number of 16, then in reality we will be faced with a decimal point. So how do we treat that decimal point if the number is changing and not fixed and not a whole number?

It's in the same manner. We round off.

We

round off.

Thank you. If

it's only 23, then it's still 16.

Because

the round-off is to 16.

It's 15.33, CJ Pangindiban. So

is it 16 or

is it 15?

In that case, it's 15.

If it's 22, two-thirds is 14.66.

Then it's 15.

So anything above 0.5 is your position?

That's not my position, Your Honor. That's the mathematical position.

Thank you, CJ Panganiwan. With the permission of Senator Padilla, can we excuse CJ... Ka

-textmate ko po si Senator Padilla. Pwede po bang makauwi na o may tanong kayo sa akin?

Meron po akong tanong sa inyo pero ite-text ko na lang po.

Pwede po. Siguro nahihiya ako sa inyo at lalabas ako eh. Ka-textmate ko pa naman kayo.

Oo nga po eh.

Baka pwede isang tanong lang po.

Maraming salamat

po. Thank you. With your indulgence, CJ Panganiban. You

may proceed, Senator-Judge Padilla.

Una po, gusto ko pong pasalamatan ang ating mga masasabi pong kagalang-galang at minamahal na mga pundasyon ng bayang ito, ang ating mga justices. Ngayong araw po, naging malinaw ang kanila mga pahayag. Ang Impeachment Court. ay isang independent body. Ibig sabihin, taglay nito ang otoridad na pangalagaan ang sarili nitong proceedings at ang mga miyembro nito at iyaking nagagawa ng bawat isa ang kanilang mga tungkulin at ginagampanan ang kanilang mandato ng walang labis na pakikialam. Ang tanong ko po, Sa aking ka-text mate. Kanina po ang ganda-ganda po kasi nung sinabi niyo po yung truth and fairness. Iyan po ba mahal naming Chief Justice? Ibig po bang sabihin dito muna mag-umpisa sa korte na to ang truth and fairness? Dito po mag-uumpisa at dito rin matatapos.

Ibig pong sabihin, kung meron pong una dapat makinabang yung mga miyembro po namin na nangangailangan ng truth and fairness.

Tama po ba? Tama

po. Lahat po tayo kailangan ng truth and fairness. Yun po ang magiging basihan namin.

Yung truth and fairness. Salamat po. Yun na lang po muna. Ang una kong tanong. Yung iba po, i-text ko na lang po sa inyo. Kasi yun po yung pinakamahalaga sa lahat.

Maraming salamat po. So

with

your permission, can

we excuse, Senator Judge Padilla, can we excuse CJ Panganiban?

Maraming salamat po, CJ Panganiban.

Maraming salamat din po. Ayang panahon na naririto ako, kahit pagod po ako, kahit kumisa na naantok ako, nagigising ako.

Kaya po,

maraming salamat sa inyo, sa pinakinggan nyo. Maliit na kuro-kuro ko sa ating napakahirap na sitwasyon. Mahirap pong sagutin sapagkat tatlo na pong maestrado ang nasa harap niyo. Isa pa ang sumulat. Tinext nga po ako ni Chief Justice David. Nakikinig po siya.

Nakikinig sa tanong ninyo. Nakikinig sa sagot namin. Sinasagot po niya rin. At sinasabi niya, akong gagaling ng mga senador.

Salamat po sa inyong pasensya, pagsagot sa aming mga katanungan at pagbahagi po ng inyong kaalaman, karunungan, karanasan at pag-unawa kaugnay sa mga isyong ipunikol po namin sa inyo. Maraming salamat po at magandang hapon po sa inyo, CJ.

Salamat po.

You are excused, sir.

Senator-Judge Padilla may continue.

Para po sa aking pangalawang tanong para po kay Chief Justice Puno. Chief Justice, kung kami po mismo ay isang independent at makapangyarihang impeachment court,

hindi po ba dapat hindi kami dinidiktahan o inuutosan ng isa pang court na nakakagambala sa aming mga proceedings?

Supreme Court ay nasa kanilang jurisdiction, nasa kanilang kapangyarihan.

Kung

anumang ang naging desisyon nila ay isang pag-uutos na naaayon sa batas. Kanya hindi po yun isang pag-uutos na illegal. Ang

nadinig ko po kanina, pagdating po sa impeachment, Mas mataas po ang impeachment court sa Supreme Court. Yung po bang Sandiganbayan? Halimbawa po, sinasabi ng Sandiganbayan na bawal makilahok yung aming ibang miyembro dahil sila po ay may mga kaso sa kanila. Hindi po ba nila sinasaklawan ang kapangyarihan ng aming impeachment court na sinasabi po ninyo na mas mataas pagdating po sa impeachment?

Dapat po natin bigyan ng study yung kapangyarihan ng Sandiganbayan vis-a-vis yung kapangyarihan ng Senate Impeachment Court.

Diyan

po sa hypothetical situation na sinabi niyo.

Sandiganbayan ay may jurisdiction doon sa tao na bilanggo at binibistahan nila. Siguro nakakulong dahil non-bailable yung offense.

So

masasabi natin may jurisdiction sila.

Jurisdiction over the person or jurisdiction over the subject matter. On the other hand, pag tinignan din natin yung katayuan ng Senate Impeachment Tribunal, mayroon din silang jurisdiction dahil yung subject matter ay yung mga impeachable offenses under the Constitution of the Philippines. So may jurisdiction sila sa subject matter. So you have a situation where you have a class of jurisdictions.

So

yun po yung mahirap na katanungan. How do we resolve these conflicting jurisdictions?

Can we take a middle ground? Para yung jurisdiction ng Sandiganbayan ay marespeto. At ganun din, yung jurisdiction ng Senate Impeachment Tribunal ay marespeto rin. At kanina nga, binigay ko yung isang sitwasyon. Kung saan yung regular court artisi ay by jurisdiction sa isang kaso. Yung involved na tao ay member ng Communist Party, charged with rebellion, nakakulong, binibistahan. Ngunit nagkaroon ng super-meaning event. Nagkaroon ng peace talk. Ang gobyerno at ang itong mga communist party at their allies charged with overthrowing the government of the Philippines. At nagkataon, yung mga nakakulog na miyembro ng communist party ay kinuhang peace consultants or peace advisors.

Noong nakikipag-negotiate sa Norway, kahit yung mga peace negotiations before that, ganoon din ang nangyari. May mga peace advisors. So ang ginawa nila, nag-motion sila doon sa mga trial courts kung saan nandun yung kaso dito mga peace advisors na ito, mga usgano na...

Because of their order, nakakulong yung mga tao na yan. Unbailable yung offense. At ang ginawa nilang excuse ay because of this calling, this higher calling to have peace in the Philippines. Pwede bang pakawalan itong mga tao na ito habang nagkakaroon ng peace negotiation? At pinakawala naman po ng ating mga husugado under certain terms and conditions. Pinagbigay ng bail and so on and so forth para masigurado na pagkatapos ng peace process, babalik sila sa kanilang kulungan. Yun po ay nangyari. And that is an example on how we can reconcile. yung conflicting claims of jurisdiction. Dito, ganun din yung challenge natin. Maaari bang i-reconcile itong jurisdiction ng Senate Impeachment Tribunal at yung jurisdiction ng Saligang Batas? Ano bang, bakit ba nakakulong yan? Ano bang charge dyan? Usually, yung charge, offense in connection with the performance of their duty as lawmakers.

Kaya

hindi sila pinapayagang bumalik sa kanilang katungkulan dahil mayroong danger that they will abuse the powers of their office as lawmakers.

Iba naman po itong sitwasyon kung saan yung nakakulog ay bibigyan ng temporary liberty para maganap niya yung katungkulan niya as a judge. Hindi siya mag-a-appear dito as an accused. He will be appearing as a judge.

At sabi ko nga, yun namang katungkulan na yun, hindi naman matagal na gagampanan yun sa matagal na panahon. Itong impeachment proceedings na ito, parang matatapos na bago December or what. In other words, temporary lang ito. At magagampanan naman niya yung katungkulan niya na hindi siya lumalabas. Doon sa kanyang pinagkukulungan, pwede naman siyang mag-participate doon online. So, ang sakin, baka ma-reconcile ang conflict of jurisdiction na ang mangyayari, ma-fulfill lahat natin yung purposes ng batas na itong tao na ito hindi pwedeng makawala. in the performance of his legislative duty. Pero pwede mong pakawalan temporarily in the performance of his duty as a judge. At kung titimbangin natin, napakahilag po yung duty niya as a judge in an impeachment court. So yan po ay open na question yan.

Maraming salamat po si Chief Justice sa napakagandang paliwanag po. Napakalinaw po. Mayroon lang po akong tanong kay Associate Justice Ascuna.

Napakaliwanag po nung sinabi ni Chief Justice na yung explanation po niya. Kanina nabanggit niyo po na pwede namang kung hindi sila naka-attend nung una. Halimbawa po sila'y pinayagan na nagkaroon po ng Aksyon na sila'y

umatend na dito at pinayagan. Yung pong mga recording, yung pong mga nangyaring proceeding, tatanggapin po ba yun? Ibig sabihin it, tanggap, katanggap, tanggap na na mapanood nila para magkaroon sila ng judgment. Marami po kasing nakailang araw na po kami, lagpas na pong dalawampung araw na kami po'y nagsagawa ng trial. So meron po silang mga nalagpasan. Ibig pong sabihin, kanina sinabi niyo po, pwede yung mga video recording?

Sa palagay ko po, ito ay nasa kapangyarihan ng Senado sa pamamagitan ng poder ng Senado to adopt rules concerning impeachment to make it more effective.

Subalit sa ngayon, ang pagkaalam ko ay Ang rules ng Senado ay nagsabi na kailangang face-to-face presence. Hindi pwede yung Zoom or digital presence lamang. Kaya yung nakakulong, unless they're allowed by the Sandiganbayan to come here under guard, unless you change your rules, hindi sila pwedeng Humaloc's proceedings.

So that is the present situation but that can be changed. There can be a law passed requiring the courts to allow members of the Senate to attend the impeachment proceedings. I think there's nothing unconstitutional about that because after all, they are not yet convicted. They are still presumed innocent. But as things stand now under present laws as well as present rules of the Senate, I don't think that is allowable for them to participate long distance. Only those who can be present here will be able to participate and vote. But as I said, they are counted among the denominator because they remain members of the Senate.

Maraming salamat po. Bilang ako po ay naging pansamantala na naging tagapangulo po ng Constitutional Amendment, tama po ba pag sinabi ko na yung 1987 Constitution, iyaan po ay ratified ng taong bayan ng isang plebisito?

Opo, ratified po ng isang plebisito. Any amendment? or revision of the Constitution na kailangan pong i-ratify ng taong bayan sa pamamagitan ng plebisito.

Ibig pong sabihin, noong pong panahon na pumasa po ito, yung no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate, naiintindihan po ng taong bayan na all ang ibig sabihin po ng Constitution.

Sa palagay ko po naintindihan nila dahil meron po kaming official version in Pilipino sa mismong saligang batas. At palagay ko nabasa rin nila ito. At ang sinabi dito sa saligang batas natin in Pilipino, hindi dapat parusahan ang sino mang tao na walang pagsangayon ng dalawang katlo ng lahat ng kagawad ng Senado. Maliwanag po yan.

Ibig pong sabihin hindi natin po ito pwedeng basta baguhin nang walang ratifikasyon ng taong bayan. Iaang pong mga salita na yan.

Depende po. Kung ang pagbabago ay isang amendment ay kailangan po ng proseso sa Ating saligang batas na kailangan po panukala ng three-fourths ng Kongreso, aprobahan, tapos plebisito. Ngunit kung interpretasyon lamang, interpretasyon ng Senado tungkol dito, hindi po kailangang aprobahan ng plebisito sapagkat hindi po binago ang probisyon, ininterpret lang.

Maraming salamat po Justice Escuna. Balik po ako kay Chief Justice Puno. Bilang ilang beses na pong sinubukan na i-revisit ang konstitusyon, tama po ba na sabihin ko na dapat kung may babaguhin tayo sa konstitusyon dumaan tayo sa tatlong proseso? Yun pong CON-CON, CON-AS, at People's Initiative. Tama po ba?

Opo. Yun ang tatlong ways kung paano ma-amendahan o mababago ang ating konstitusyon.

Maraming salamat po sa inyong lahat. Opo. Mga kasama, kung babaguhin po at bubotohan natin ang threshold na maaaring habang buhay na kwestyonin ng isang political na hatihating sambayan ng Pilipino, Bakit hindi muna po natin binago ang ating sariling rules upang ipaglaban ng karapatan ng ating mga membro na makadalo sa proceedings? Maraming salamat po.

This is for Justice Ascuna.

ng ilang mga hindi sa mga sangayon sa pamahalan. Ang tanong po ay ito, kung maaari palang baguhin ang bilang ng botong itinakda ng Saligan Batas para sa mga kritikal na usapin, kagaya ng impeachment at deklarasyon ng martial law, ano po ang garantiya na hindi ito gagamitin para siguruhin na ang isang pangulo o opisyal at kanyang mga kaalyado ay mananatili sa kapagyarihan at supili ng kanilang mga kalaban sa politika? Justice Azcuna?

Bukso ng karanasan natin sa martial law, kung saan sinupil ang maraming mga karapatang pantao, marami pong mga karapatang sinupil, marami pong mga nakulong o pinakulong, ano po ang garantiya natin na kung maaari palang baguhin yung botong itinakda sa saligang batas, kaugnay halimbawa ng impeachment? at pag-revoke ng MARSA law. Nakalagay din po kasalan all members din eh. Ano po ang garantiya natin na hindi po ito gagamitin ng isang pangulo o opisyal o kanya mga kaalyado para manatili lamang sa kapangyarihan at supilin ang kanilang mga kalaban sa politika?

Wala pong garantiya. Kaya po iyon po ang panganib na nakita ng mga drafters ng ating Saligang Batas. Kaya ginawang basehan o denominator ang total membership ng Senado o Kongreso. Hindi lang Senado, kung tingnan ninyo po sa House of Representatives, ang butuhan din po ay two-thirds of all the members, majority of all the members. Even in the committee, 60-member committee, is majority of all the members. Kaya that is a safeguard po.

Palagay ko po, that is the assurance that as far as is possible, humanly possible in drafting a fundamental law, that the needed majority will not be subject to easy manipulation.

Para din po sa inyo, I'm Justice Ascuna mula pa rin po sa counsel for the respondent. Nabanggit po kanina na some of the circumstances that could prevent a senator or member of an impeachment court from attending the impeachment trial or participating therein include detention, travel abroad, criminal prosecution of some kind. Would it not be a dangerous precedent to change the threshold needed for conviction in an impeachment case? As these circumstances mentioned, kabilang ang pagpapakulong sa mga senador, pagsampan ng mga kaso laban sa kanila, pag-deny ng piyansa sa kanila para masigurong hindi sila makaka-attend ng trial, could be deliberately done and instigated by a ruling political faction.

Kaya nga po, iyan po ang panganib na abusuhin ng isang Pangulo. o hindi lang Pangulo, pwede rin member ng Senado. Whoever controls the power of who can attend, who can prevent fellow members from attending the proceedings, isang puder yan if you make the threshold dependent on actual attendance. Kaya po, the safeguard is to make the threshold depending on the entire members, entire membership, so that it is not easy to manipulate. It can still be manipulated, but it's not as easy if you leave it to a mere presence as a denominator. So, yun lang po ang safeguard na nakikita ko under our present Constitution. That is the rational.

Mula pa rin po sa ating counsel for the respondents para po kay dating Chief Justice Puno.

Would this not open personal attacks against the Senators themselves by the ruling political faction in order to achieve a specific outcome such as ensuring that their political opponent is removed from office at all costs? Hindi rin po ba nito mapapahina ang institusyon ng Senado at pagpapanagot sa mga tiwali?

Theoretical, hypothetical problem na yan ay kung yan ay totoong nangyayari at kung yan ay mapapatibayan, ang resulta po niyan ay maaana lahat yung proceedings na ginawa dito. At ang ground nga po ay yung na-violate yung karapatan. ng respondent. To be judged by judges who are fair and impartial. To

be judged by the right number of qualified judges. Yun po ang mangyayari, the decision will be rendered null and void at

yung conviction.

will also be annulled because the conviction violated the due process clause of the Constitution.

Nakita po natin yan nangyari yung doon sa kasunod ni late Senator Benigno Aquino. You

review how he was charged before a trial commission, how witnesses

were presented against him, witnesses with doubtful credibility, and he was convicted by this commission. But later on, the decision was reviewed, and the decision was annulled on several reasons, but basically on the basis of denial of due process. Ganyan din po ang mangyayari dito.

Kung itong proseso na ito na napakaraming safeguards para yung respondent ay mahatulan ng maayos ng mga judges na qualified, judges who are fair and impartial, kung lahat ng safeguards na yan ay mababiolate, ang resulta po ay annulment of the proceedings, dismissal of the decision of conviction.

Thank you. Yes, Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano is recognized.

Justice Puno, I took note nga na sinabi nyo na two justiciable instances would be when a senator-judge is unjustifiably denied their right to sit in court and then the other one is if the respondent is denied a fair trial and therefore no due process.

unjustifiably denied the right. I think that was also taken up by Justice Ascuna by saying that there's a balance that can be sought to allow the other colleagues. Kasi at the end of the day, baka nga ho ma-question at uulit po tayo. Yun ho yata yung parehong sinasabi niyo if I understand correctly na nobody wants this to go on and on.

The other reason why I think my timing is best that I ask now was because the question was asked,

is

there pressure on senator-judges that would basically have the effect of this threshold mechanism that is being changed, e maapektuhan yun? And although Justice is here, sabi ni Justice Panganiban, it's based on your observations. Kung ano yung nakita nyo, naramdaman nyo. So ito po yung sitwasyon. At least I can only speak for what I observed. We have two senators in jail. If the one senator would be allowed to come here, I know Senator Estrada would like to speak on how he felt pressured.

Another senator is in hiding because he was threatened na maglalabas ng ICC warrant. Pero pagkakaalam ko hindi pa niya nakita yung ICC warrant. And then a fourth senator is on medical leave but she also was told na mapafailan siya ng plunder cases. Then I speak for myself. I went to Singapore to support a national team. And then I have to hear NBI Director making statements that make it appear that I'm a

common fugitive na na-monitor niya kung nasan ako at meron siyang information kung anong araw ako babalik. Am I a fugitive? Bakit may ganito? So, I will tell you all now. Am I pressured? I am. I am.

I fear for my liberty.

Even in the Senate. We have a colleague na walang katapusan. Tantanan kami.

I fear for my right to speak.

So what will happen now? Do I excuse myself?

Pero kung hindi gagalawin niyang number na yan, e di nakakapagsalita tayo dito ng maayos. Yun lang naman po.

I

think that's all I have to say. I have many notes but that's all I have to say.

Justice Ascuna, Justice Punamuna, tama naman ho yung aking summary nung inyong justiciable instances kasi we will use that seriously if necessary. Yung sinabi ko po. Tama ho yung summary ko nung sinabi nyo na if a senator-judge is Unjustly denied the right to participate and the second is if the respondent is denied due process because of an unabunal. Did I accurately cover that?

Yes, Your Honor, that perfectly summarizes my short thesis. And I'm saying that those two examples are not political questions. They are justiciable questions. They involve violation of specific rights of a respondent and therefore there are standards that can be used by the court to decide the case and the appropriate remedy.

Thank you so much, Justice. Chief Justice, kay Justice Ascuna naman po, meron tayong Supreme Court case, People v. Gray, na sinabi ng Korte that the Court recognizes that in certain cases, political persecution or political motives may have impelled the filing of criminal charges against certain political rivals. Pag nangyari ito, hindi naman pinagbabawal na pag talaga naman may kaso, Talaga namang dapat makasuhan. Pero kung meron hong nakikitang senaryo, meron hong nakikitang build-up na isa-isang for some reason hindi maka-attend, whether nga nasa kulungan, whether kailangan magtago, or tinatakot na magkakakaso, or like in my case that I genuinely don't even know what to do because left and right, napafailan ang mga kasama ko. As we speak, dear colleagues, yung kasama ko na kasamahan namin sa Senate, staff namin, Southeast Asian Games, isa ho sa tumulong sa Southeast Asian Games, ayan, nasupina na. Dahil ba staff siya ni Alan? Para saan? Walang ginawa kundi hanapin yung poll ni EJ Oviena na kailangan pang makiusap sa customs na yung poll na yan ay makarating in time for the Games. Siguraduhin na maayos ang ating state of the art na now ay kinukopia sa lahat ng mga international events. Nagkaroon na ng asthma for life because nakababa doon sa construction para maayos on time itong Southeast Asian Games. Si Monica Mitra po. Ayun, nakasuha na. So, hindi pa ba hu-pressure yun, Justice Ascuna?

I think it's not for me to judge the circumstances of that particular case. I can only reiterate the premise of my submission that the reason for the threshold is to protect The Senate from artificial and partisan moves to prevent the justice from being done. So I think perhaps we can apply the four-way test of the Rotary to your problem. Is it the truth? Is it fair? Is it beneficial to all concerned? Will it promote friendship and goodwill? I always use that test in problematic situations. So I think it will be a good place to apply it to your case. Thank you.

Alam ko po yun dahil Rotarian din ang daddy ko. I withdraw my question. I did not mean to ask it that way. It was, you know, I'm very emotional about this issue. The question I meant to ask is exactly how you answered it na is this precisely why it is your opinion that that threshold should not be changed? Pero nasagot nyo naman po but if you want to add, I leave it up to you. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank

you, Senator Judge P. Cayetano.

Just three interjections from the chair. I have a theory that you bring everything in its absurd point so that you can test the theory or doctrine. So I will do it both sides. Justice Azcuna, natanong po ni Sen. Lacson kinina paano kung siyam ang nagbabiyahe. Tanungin ko po, paano kung siyam na senador ang namatay, labing lima lamang? Ibig sabihin po ba nun, patay na titik at letra na ng batas ang impeachment? Makabuluhan pa ba na mag-impeachment ang Kamara? Alam naman po nila na wala pang special election na pinapatawag. Hindi rin naman po makukonvict kung talaga nakabase yan sa 24 ang all members. So habang kulang po ba at habang sobra sa siyam ang wala at hindi makakaboto, patay na letra po ba ang pananagutan sa ilalim ng Article 11 ng Constitution sa pamamagitan ng impeachment? Dahil siyempre nandun pa rin naman yung binanggit niyo, di ba? Yung kasuhan sila sa Korte, mag-forfeiture. Pero yung provision na iyon, yung pananagutan, patay po ba? Patay na titik ng letra ng batas na po ba iyon?

Napakabilis po kayong magsalita. Ay,

sorry po.

Dahil po, dahil po, dadaling ko po sa ekstremo yung punto. Kapag kasam na miyembro ng Senado ang pumanaw, Sabi niyo po kasi pag pumanaw hindi sila kasama. Ibig sabihin hindi na po makakarating ng labing-anim ang boto o two-thirds ng lahat ng miyembro ng Senado habang hindi po ba napapalitan yung mga pumanaw, dead letter law, yung proviso ng impeachment sa saligang batas kaugnay ng pagpapanagot ng tiwaling opisyal sa pamamagitan ng prosesong ito.

Nine members perished in a plane crash. Ganun ba yan? Apo. Okay, so you have 15 left and insufficient to reach the necessary 16.

But the situation has changed because if nine died, there are only 15 who are left. So when you say all members of the Senate, it means 15. 15 are members. Not 16. 16 is not in the Constitution.

So it's two-thirds of 15?

Two-thirds of all the members. If all the members are 15, then two-thirds of 15 can convict, in my view.

As

long as you have a quorum. The quorum is one-half plus one. If you have only 12 senators left, you cannot do business.

So if you have 15, you can do business. And you get two-thirds of that, you can convict, in my view. What if

13 perish? So there are only 12 remaining senators. We do not have a

quorum. You cannot do business. because the quorum in the Senate is one half plus one majority.

Majority of each house constitutes quorum. Quorum is not the vote. It is the number needed to do business. Whether you are present or not, you need a quorum to be present. So if you have only 11 left, the rest are dead. Special elections. to fill the vacancy. Meanwhile, postpone the proceedings.

So, the same is true kung may mag-resign na siyem. Your answer will be the same.

Resignation also creates a vacancy po. Yes. So, again, if enough numbers resign to leave less than 16, you can have two-thirds of 15, two-thirds of 14, two-thirds of 13. As long as you have a quorum.

Thank you for clarifying your position that it's only in case of a permanent vacancy that you change the threshold.

Yes, because it changes the total number of senators.

Thank you, Justice Guna. Again, bringing it to its absurd or extreme point, CJ Puno, if I may po, what if for one reason or another, 21 senators are made unavailable and there are only 3 senators left? Two-thirds would therefore be two out of three. Would that still be a fair interpretation of the provisions of Article 11 on impeachment? Again, I don't think it will happen. I hope it will not happen. But bringing it to its absurd point, if there are only three remaining senators who can vote, who are capacitated to vote, Would two out of three be enough to convict an impeachable officer, president or vice president, or any of the impeachable officers?

That is one purpose of constitutional interpretation. To avoid that kind of interpretation that will result in absurdities, that will result in injustice.

That kind of a situation was never contemplated by those who wrote our Constitution, including our people that ratified the Constitution.

I

would like to thank Your Honor that in that kind of situation, you have to make a balancing. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

These contending values, there is no hard and right answer to that kind of a situation. But perhaps what the Senate Impeachment Tribunal can do is to archive the case or to dismiss the case without prejudice.

So that if the Senate can propagate the proper rules or the circumstances would occur that would allow the Senate to do its duty of deciding the case with substantial compliance with the requirements of the Constitution, then

The Senate can always retrieve the case. The Senate can always pick

up

from where they stopped and resume the trial of the case.

Justice Ascuna earlier mentioned that in Indonesia, I believe, they needed to have at least two-thirds of two-thirds. Two-thirds yung quorum, two-thirds of the quorum. Now, what would be if you have a number in mind that would be an equilibrium that would provide, given your totality test, CJ Puno? Fifteen? Twenty? Sixteen? Nothing below majority?

Meaning anything below majority would be an absurdity, not Anything above majority of 24 would be acceptable. If you have an opinion on this, CJ Puno.

Given that very extreme circumstance, again the question is, what is the ideal number?

My guess, Your Honor, is as good as yours.

Then we both don't have a guess, CJ Puno, because I don't. One final question. I ask this of CJ Panganiban.

Again, If the number is fixed at 24, then clearly 2 thirds is 16. Wala pong decimal point. Pero kung hindi po siya fixed, may decimal point po eh. CJ Panganiban said earlier, unfortunately he's not here, anything above 0.5 mathematically, not legally, should be the higher number. Anything below 0.5 should be the lower number. My problem is, anything below The decimal point is not 2 thirds. So, for example, 2 thirds of 23 members is 15.33. It's not above 0.5. If I take the lower number, 15 by any mathematical computation will not reach 2 thirds. And there is no 0.33 person, there is no 0.66, 0.5, and I think the framers too took that into account. na walang kalahating tao, walang decimal point na tao. So how would we face that? Yes, Justice Ascuna.

That is the decision of the Supreme Court, Your Honors, that in computing these fractions, ignore fractions. So if it is 14.33, it's 14.