September 23, 2026

The court granted Sen. Erwin Tulfo's appeal by 13 affirmative votes to one negative vote, with six senator-judges not participating. It replaced the July 6 fixed-16 interpretation with a two-thirds calculation based on senators legally and factually capable of participating at the eventual conviction vote. The chair declared that ruling controlling for the proceedings.

The chair listed legal restraint, being sought with whereabouts unknown, physical or medical incapacity, being beyond Senate coercive process, and similar circumstances as possible exclusions from the denominator. The court will decide whether an individual member qualifies on competent and sufficient evidence, then round any fractional two-thirds vote requirement up to the next whole number.

The chair said the interpretation applies to this occasion and is neither a rule amendment nor binding precedent for future impeachment proceedings.

The court rejected Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano's appeal over proceeding to a threshold vote. The chair announced 13 affirmative votes, six negative votes and one abstention on that procedural appeal; the Tulfo appeal remained for a separate vote.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero denied Rep. Jose Manuel "Chel" I. Diokno's preliminary request to strike defense counsel's earlier description of the Vice President as the "respondent accused," after checking the transcript of that statement.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero opened oral argument on Sen. Erwin Tulfo's appeal of the July 6 threshold ruling, with the prosecution to speak before the defense.

Rep. Jose Manuel "Chel" I. Diokno argued for the prosecution that two-thirds remains the constitutional fraction but the applicable membership can vary; Atty. Michael Wesley Poa urged the court to retain the 16-vote interpretation.

After Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano challenged the court's authority and timing to revisit the threshold, participants clarified that his appeal concerned whether the court would proceed to the threshold vote. The chair announced that the procedural appeal lost, with 13 affirmative votes, six negative votes and one abstention.

Following a recess, the chair put Sen. Erwin Tulfo's threshold appeal to the court, explained that an aye would replace the fixed-16 ruling with a capability-based denominator, and announced that the appeal won, 13–1, with six senator-judges not participating.

After defense counsel reserved legal remedies, the chair directed that certified transcripts be available, checked the existing subpoenas for next week's witnesses, and adjourned until September 28 at 10 a.m.

Rep. Jose Manuel "Chel" I. Diokno argued that the constitutional two-thirds fraction stays the same, while the denominator should reflect senators able to perform the impeachment court's duties, including taking the oath, hearing evidence, deliberating and voting.

Diokno cited Avelino v. Cuenco as an institutional-capacity analogy while acknowledging that it involved legislative quorum; he treated Bayan v. Zamora's 16-vote reference as an arithmetic illustration rather than a fixed impeachment rule.

Using 20 members as an example, Diokno calculated 14 votes for conviction and seven to prevent it. He said the prosecution would present the same evidence and bear the same burden whatever denominator the court chose.

On possible Supreme Court review, Diokno said the issue would become justiciable after an eventual verdict made fewer than 16 votes decisive.

Atty. Michael Wesley Poa argued that the July 6 16-vote ruling had stood for more than two months and that neither the Senate's reconsideration period nor the court-rule period he invoked by analogy supported reopening it at this point in the trial.

Poa read the Constitution's reference to two-thirds of all Senate members as distinct from members present or participating. He argued that the 24 occupied seats required 16 votes because absence, detention, inhibition and nonparticipation did not create vacancies; he cited Bayan v. Zamora and the Corona impeachment and distinguished Avelino as a quorum case.

Poa said absent senator-judges could review transcripts, journals or video and could abstain or inhibit if unable to judge impartially. He warned that making the denominator depend on absence or detention could invite pressure on senator-judges and raise due-process concerns for the respondent.

Poa said the defense might seek Supreme Court review if the threshold changed. After the court's vote, Atty. Sheila C. Sison placed the respondent's participation under express reservation and reserved available legal remedies.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano argued that changing the conviction threshold during trial risked a challenge to the proceedings and urged that the constitutional question be left to the Supreme Court. He questioned prosecution counsel on how absent senators could later participate, whether the Court could amend its rules to permit electronic participation, and whether it could secure detained senators' attendance. Rep. Jose Manuel ‘Chel’ I. Diokno said the Court could amend its rules, but favored in-person assessment of evidence and said the Sandiganbayan should decide whether detained senators could attend. Cayetano maintained that the impeachment court might be able to compel their attendance, asked why a lower threshold would not risk a mistrial, and proposed leaving a disputed verdict of fewer than 16 conviction votes for Supreme Court review. Diokno answered that Supreme Court review would become ripe only after a verdict vote. Cayetano later noted a pending Supreme Court case and renewed his proposal to allow electronic participation. When a threshold vote became imminent, he manifested that he and some colleagues would not participate, raised a point of order against the Court taking up the issue at that time, and appealed after the Chair rejected the point. The Chair confirmed that sustaining Cayetano's appeal would stop the threshold vote; the Court rejected the appeal, 13–6 with one abstention. Cayetano subsequently did not participate in the separate vote on Sen. Erwin Tulfo's threshold appeal, which the Court granted.

Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino asked whether either party would seek Supreme Court review of the Court's voting-threshold decision. Defense counsel Michael Wesley Poa said a petition was possible if the 16-vote expectation changed during trial; prosecutor Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno maintained that the impeachment court had exclusive authority to decide the issue. Aquino offered his view that the Senate's sole power to try and decide impeachment concerns guilt or innocence, while constitutional interpretation of the voting threshold could be reviewed by the Supreme Court. When he asked whether a senator-judge could seek guidance, Diokno said the Court would likely reject declaratory relief and would require an actual ripe dispute, with no verdict vote yet taken. Poa agreed that an advisory opinion for a senator-judge was unlikely but maintained that the threshold dispute was already justiciable and ultimately for the Supreme Court to decide.

Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson manifested concern that the parties' descriptions of the 16-vote threshold could mislead the court. He disputed the prosecution's characterization of Justice Azcuna's view as making 16 nonabsolute, citing the justice's statement that ‘all means all.’ He also clarified the Corona trial precedent: although the Senate then had 23 members, two-thirds was 15.33, which rounded up to 16, so the threshold did not fall. The Presiding Officer said the court would make a corresponding ruling depending on the later vote. Rep. Jose Manuel ‘Chel’ I. Diokno responded that he understood Justice Azcuna to allow a lower denominator in cases of permanent vacancy, while defense counsel Michael Wesley Poa accepted Lacson's arithmetic and said fractional thresholds should be rounded up.

Sen. Joel Villanueva manifested that the Constitution states a two-thirds threshold rather than a fixed 16 votes, then asked defense counsel why the framers used that fraction and whether the Senate's sole power to try and decide impeachment bears on the question. Atty. Michael Wesley Poa answered that the denominator follows Senate membership: it is 24 when all seats are filled and changes upon a vacancy, which explains the fractional wording. Villanueva then asked prosecutor Rep. Jose Manuel "Chel" I. Diokno about the supermajority's purpose and whether a different impeachment denominator would affect other constitutional voting thresholds, including martial law, expulsion, and constitutional change. Diokno agreed the supermajority serves accountability and said an impeachment-court decision under Article XI would not affect those other provisions.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano clarified that she had questioned on September 8 whether the Impeachment Court was the proper forum to revisit the ordinary meaning of 'two-thirds of all members'; the Chair acknowledged her earlier question but said it had not been an appeal of his ruling. She later argued that counting only senators able to vote would change the Constitution's wording, questioned the Court's authority to do so, and recalled former Chief Justice Puno's warning that denial of a senator-judge's participation or a respondent's fair trial could be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Invited to respond, defense counsel Poa agreed that grave abuse could be reviewed, while prosecutor Diokno argued that review before a vote would be premature. Cayetano then asked whether Tulfo's appeal would change the July 6 ruling and whether a dissatisfied party could seek Supreme Court relief; the Chair answered yes to both, with the ruling unchanged if the appeal failed. She stated her own view that disputes over who counts among 'all members,' including detained senators, belong to the Supreme Court.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo defended the timeliness of his appeal of the July 6 fixed-16-vote ruling, saying senators' medical leave abroad, uncertain whereabouts, and detention raised new questions about who could participate. He argued that the Constitution specifies a two-thirds fraction, not an immutable number, so the denominator should reflect the Senate's ability to act. Defense counsel Michael Wesley Poa replied that, except for one medical leave, the cited absences already existed on July 6; Sen. Camille Villar objected to his description of absent colleagues. Tulfo later apologized to anyone hurt, clarified that he had said colleagues were charged, not convicted, and maintained that their ability to participate was relevant to the denominator. The Court subsequently granted his appeal, 13–1 with six not participating.

Sen. Camille Villar manifested that detained and absent colleagues had not been convicted, objected to characterizing them as plunderers or thieves, and asked senators to treat one another with respect. Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano supported that appeal; Sen. Erwin Tulfo later apologized to anyone hurt, clarified that he had said the colleagues were charged rather than convicted, and maintained that their inability to participate mattered to the denominator debate. Explaining her vote on the appeal concerning whether the Court could revisit the threshold, Villar opposed deciding the constitutionally prescribed impeachment vote threshold by a midtrial vote, arguing for consistent rules, due process, and fidelity to the Constitution. The Court separately declared that appeal lost.

Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla asked defense counsel Atty. Michael Wesley Poa and prosecution counsel Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno whether they stood by their oaths to uphold the Constitution and were appearing in professional and moral, rather than political, capacities. Both affirmed their oaths and denied appearing politically; Diokno also agreed that constitutional change must follow the prescribed procedures and named a constitutional assembly, constitutional convention, and people’s initiative. In a later manifestation, Padilla asked colleagues to understand the minority’s concern for detained senators with pending cases and objected to language he felt treated them as already convicted; no direct answer followed. Explaining his vote, he argued against lowering the 16-vote conviction threshold, comparing the caution applied to constitutional amendment procedures and recalling earlier statements by presiding officers that 16 votes remained necessary even with fewer senators present.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III asked whether the July 6 statement fixing 16 conviction votes arose from a question or motion. The Chair said it began in his opening statement but later confirmed it as a ruling when asked by senator-judges. Sotto disputed treating 16 as a number in the Constitution and proposed amending Sen. Erwin Tulfo's appeal to retain a two-thirds fraction of senators able to vote, including absent senators if they returned or were allowed to attend. He then called the previous question to end debate on Tulfo's motion as he proposed to amend it; the Chair took that request under advisement. Later, Sotto argued that granting Tulfo's appeal would make the issue reviewable by the Supreme Court, whereas inaction would leave no decision to challenge. The Chair subsequently clarified that the immediate vote concerned Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano's separate procedural appeal, before the Court voted on Tulfo's appeal.

Sen. Mark A. Villar manifested in support of his sister Sen. Camille Villar’s call for care in speaking about absent colleagues. He said some colleagues faced cases but had not been found guilty, and urged senators to consider the public effect of their words and extend those colleagues courtesy. The Chair noted his manifestation; it received no substantive answer or ruling.

Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan raised the procedural need to vote on Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano's appeal of the Chair's ruling; Cayetano confirmed. Before the roll call, Pangilinan clarified that this vote concerned Cayetano's point of order, not Sen. Erwin Tulfo's separate appeal on the conviction-vote threshold. The Chair confirmed that scope, and Cayetano confirmed that losing his appeal would allow the threshold vote to proceed. Cayetano's appeal was subsequently lost; Tulfo's appeal was voted on later.

Sen. Imee Marcos explained her yes vote on Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano’s appeal of the Chair’s point-of-order ruling, opposing a Court vote to change the conviction denominator. She argued that the Constitution requires concurrence by two-thirds of all Senate members, that the July 6 ruling had stood unchallenged for 79 days, and that letting a simple majority lower the supermajority threshold after trial began would weaken that safeguard. The Court rejected Cayetano’s appeal; its later approval of Sen. Erwin Tulfo’s separate denominator appeal was a distinct vote in which Marcos did not participate.

Sen. Christopher Bong Go explained his vote for Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano's appeal. He argued that conviction requires 16 votes, or two-thirds of all 24 Senate members, because absent or detained senators still hold their seats. He urged the Supreme Court to settle competing interpretations and warned that changing the threshold by a simple majority would undermine the constitutional process and its protections. The Chair recorded his statement without a substantive response.

No witness was called during this sitting. Counsel referred to evidence and testimony from earlier trial days, while this session moved through oral argument, senator-judge discussion and the two votes.

Counsel discussed the constitutional text, Senate and impeachment rules, prior court decisions and earlier impeachment proceedings as authorities for their competing threshold interpretations.

The chair confirmed that subpoenas had already issued for witnesses scheduled for the next trial week; the prosecution indicated it sought no additional subpoenas at that time.

Rep. Jose Manuel "Chel" I. Diokno summarized the prosecution's denominator argument: "Two-thirds remains two-thirds."

Accepting the court's vote despite his disagreement, Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero said: "He is merely the custodian of the process, not the proprietor of its outcome."

The court will determine on competent and sufficient evidence which, if any, senators fall within the ruling's exclusion categories when the eventual conviction vote is taken; its ruling did not set a specific vote number for that future vote.

Atty. Sheila C. Sison reserved the respondent's legal remedies, and the chair directed that certified transcripts be made available for that purpose. The trial is scheduled to resume September 28 at 10 a.m.