September 16, 2026

Davide did not participate in the hearing. He submitted a written memorandum, and the Chair directed the Clerk to read a synopsis because copies had been distributed to the parties and senator-judges and posted on the Impeachment Court website.

In the memorandum synopsis, Davide read "members" as living senators who remain capable of exercising their powers and performing their duties, rather than persons subject to mental, physical, health, or legal restraints that prevent participation.

The synopsis concluded that the two-thirds computation should use senators qualified to vote, not a fixed 24. It treated Avellino v. Cuenco as not directly applicable to an impeachment court, though potentially persuasive by analogy.

On a senator-judge who did not substantially participate, the synopsis said attendance and performance of judicial duties bear on the senator-judge's conscience and sense of duty; it also said that not asking witnesses questions is not itself proof of nonparticipation.

Panganiban described impeachment as sui generis: a proceeding with both legal and political characteristics.

He said senators should be guided by truth and fairness: truth drawn from verified documents and hearing witnesses, and fairness requiring that all sides be heard. He said active participation and independent evaluation of the evidence are essential to a senator's constitutional responsibility.

On the threshold, Panganiban favored two-thirds of senators who remain able to vote. He said a threshold that cannot be reached would immobilize the Senate's ability to render justice.

Answering Senator-Judge Juan Miguel "Migz" F. Zubiri's treaty example, Panganiban said the Senate had not violated the Constitution: the body was then acting on treaty concurrence rather than as an impeachment court, and 13 of the 20 remaining senators was two-thirds.

On judicial review, Panganiban said a Senate decision is final and unappealable except where the Senate commits grave abuse of discretion, which he distinguished from ordinary abuse of discretion.

Puno said he joined the contextual and functional school of constitutional interpretation. In answering Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva, he said the competing schools have constitutional bases and should be approached with an open mind.

Puno characterized the alternatives as preferred rather than simply correct or wrong decisions, including when considering comparative and foreign authorities.

He said impeachment decisions ordinarily concern political questions, but identified a narrower justiciable category when due process is implicated, including the respondent's right to a fair and impartial tribunal.

Answering Villanueva's question about detained senator-judges, Puno pointed to an instance in which courts permitted detained people to contribute to a peace process. He said it was an open question whether an impeachment court could permit a detained senator-judge to perform the temporary judicial duty through devices, live witness viewing, and transcripts.

Answering Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo on review, Puno said grave abuse of discretion permits Supreme Court intervention in some matters involving political questions, but described the Court's approach as restrained. He later said the timing for review depends on a concrete issue at the right time.

Azcuna argued from the history of the supermajority requirement that the Constitution deliberately makes conviction difficult: two-thirds is calculated from all existing senators, not merely those present.

Answering Villanueva, Azcuna distinguished the ability to vote from inclusion in the denominator. In his view, a senator who remains a member still counts; he identified death, resignation, and removal from office as the exceptions.

Answering Villanueva's question about detained senators, Azcuna suggested that the Senate could address the problem by passing a law allowing a detained senator to participate in the proceedings.

Answering Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros's concern that detention could prevent the threshold from being reached, Azcuna said the fixed denominator preserves the threshold's anti-manipulation rationale even if accountability may occasionally fail. He described the alternative as a trade-off: with 16 participating senators, about 10 votes could convict a president.

Answering Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano's hypothetical about pressure on senators, Azcuna declined to judge that particular circumstance and reiterated that the threshold protects the Senate from artificial and partisan moves that would prevent justice from being done.