MANILA, Philippines — A potentially decisive legal question is emerging in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial: How many votes will ultimately be required to convict her?
Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, one of the House prosecutors, said Saturday that the determination belongs to the Senate sitting as an impeachment court—not to either the prosecution or the defense.
Ridon’s statement comes as the Senate trial enters a critical stage and questions continue to surround the constitutional requirement that an impeached official must receive a two-thirds vote for conviction.
Under Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, no person may be convicted in an impeachment case without the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate. With 24 senators, that translates to 16 votes.
But Ridon suggested that the exact application of that provision could still be determined by the senator-judges themselves.
“It is not for the prosecution or defense to determine the threshold. It is for the senator-judges to make that determination,” Ridon said, according to Inquirer reporting.
The 16-vote question
The issue has become particularly significant because not every senator-judge has consistently been present during the proceedings.
Despite the debate, Senate Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero has repeatedly maintained that 16 affirmative votes are needed to convict Duterte.
Escudero previously said that his position constituted a formal ruling of the impeachment court unless overturned through the available legal remedies.
The Senate’s own news platform has likewise reported that 16 votes remain necessary to convict Duterte, underscoring that the constitutional threshold has not been formally reduced.
That means Ridon’s latest comments should not be interpreted as an announcement that the threshold has already changed.
Rather, they highlight a dispute over who ultimately has the authority to resolve any disagreement over how the constitutional provision should be applied.
Why the issue matters
The distinction could become crucial when the Senate eventually votes on the impeachment articles.
If the impeachment court maintains the traditional interpretation, prosecutors would need to secure at least 16 votes out of 24 senators for a conviction.
A failure to reach that number would prevent conviction under that interpretation.
The controversy has also raised the possibility of further legal challenges. Earlier in the proceedings, retired Supreme Court Justice Adolfo Azcuna said an impeachment dispute involving the vote threshold could potentially reach the Supreme Court. ABS-CBN reported his view that a disagreement over the required number of votes could create grounds for judicial review.
A trial with major political consequences
Duterte’s impeachment trial is already one of the most consequential political proceedings in the country.
The House of Representatives approved the impeachment articles in May after its Justice Committee unanimously endorsed the committee report. At least 106 votes from the 318-member House were required to transmit the articles to the Senate.
The House ultimately moved forward with the impeachment after lawmakers accused Duterte of multiple offenses, including alleged misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bribery and corruption, and conduct involving threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and other officials.
Duterte has denied wrongdoing and has characterized the impeachment proceedings as politically motivated.
Reuters reported when the Senate trial opened in July that the case could have significant consequences for Duterte’s political future, particularly because she has declared an intention to seek the presidency in 2028. Reuters also reported that conviction requires 16 of the Senate’s 24 votes under the constitutional framework.
Evidence takes center stage
The debate over the vote threshold comes as the Senate trial continues to examine evidence against the vice president.
One of the recent developments involved testimony from Gina Acosta, a former Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer.
According to Inquirer’s review of the seventh week of proceedings, Acosta testified that she withdrew P125 million in confidential funds from LandBank and subsequently turned the money over to Col. Raymund Lachica, Duterte’s security chief, allegedly following Duterte’s instruction.
The prosecution has highlighted the testimony as significant evidence in its allegations concerning the handling of confidential funds.
The defense, however, continues to challenge the prosecution’s allegations and maintains Duterte’s position that the impeachment case is politically driven.
What happens next?
The immediate question is not simply whether prosecutors can convince enough senator-judges to vote for conviction.
It is also whether the Senate impeachment court will ultimately stand by the 16-vote requirement or adopt a different interpretation of the constitutional language.
For now, there has been no confirmed ruling reducing the threshold below 16 votes.
Escudero continues to maintain that 16 votes are required, while Ridon argues that the senator-judges themselves have the authority to settle the question.
That leaves one of the biggest questions of the impeachment trial still hanging over the Senate:
When the final vote arrives, will 16 senators be enough—or will the impeachment court first have to settle the rules that could determine Sara Duterte’s political fate?
Leave a Reply