Davao City 1st District Representative Paolo “Pulong” Duterte has questioned the possibility of using a 10-vote requirement to overturn the Senate impeachment court’s earlier ruling that 16 votes are needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte.
The issue has become one of the most consequential questions in the ongoing impeachment trial, with the Senate impeachment court set to take up the matter later this month.
Pulong Duterte argued that a lower number of votes for a procedural question should not automatically be interpreted as allowing the Senate to change the constitutional requirement for conviction.
His remarks came after impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol said that 10 votes could be enough to overturn the earlier 16-vote ruling, because the vote on the threshold itself would be treated as a procedural matter.
Why 10 votes is now at the center of the controversy
When the impeachment trial began, Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero ruled that 16 affirmative votes would be required to convict Duterte.
The ruling was based on Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which says that an impeached official cannot be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate.
With 24 senators, two-thirds is 16 votes.
The controversy emerged because several senator-judges have been unable to participate normally in the trial.
Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta are detained in connection with separate plunder cases, while Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa is currently not attending the proceedings amid an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. Senator Loren Legarda has also been absent because of health-related circumstances.
Senator Erwin Tulfo consequently questioned whether senators who cannot participate in the proceedings should still be included in determining the number of votes required for conviction.
Tulfo later clarified that his question was not intended as a direct attempt to lower the threshold, but rather to obtain a definitive interpretation of how absent senator-judges should be treated.
The important distinction: changing a rule vs. convicting Duterte
This distinction is at the heart of Pulong Duterte’s objection.
According to the Bombo Radyo report, he questioned whether a 10-vote majority that might be sufficient for a procedural vote could also be used to effectively alter the constitutional requirement for convicting an impeached official.
The impeachment court has clarified that these are separate questions.
Tongol said that because Escudero himself issued the original 16-vote ruling, Escudero would not vote on whether that ruling should be reconsidered. With four senator-judges absent, this would leave 19 senator-judges eligible to vote on the procedural issue, meaning 10 votes would constitute a simple majority of those 19.
That does not, however, mean that 10 votes would be enough to convict Sara Duterte.
The proposed 10-vote figure concerns whether the Senate impeachment court can overturn or modify the earlier ruling on the threshold. The eventual conviction vote remains a separate matter.
Senate to hear constitutional experts
The Senate impeachment court is preparing to hear from four retired Supreme Court justices to help resolve the dispute.
The panel selected former Chief Justices Hilario Davide Jr., Artemio Panganiban and Reynato Puno, along with retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, as amici curiae, or “friends of the court.”
Davide and Azcuna were among the framers of the 1987 Constitution, making their views particularly relevant to the debate over the meaning of “two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
The legal experts are expected to address questions involving the proper voting base, the effect of absent senator-judges and the constitutional implications of changing the threshold.
September 23 could be a turning point
The impeachment court has scheduled the next major proceedings on the threshold issue for September 23, 2026.
The court is expected to hear arguments from the prosecution and defense before senator-judges vote on the appeal involving the 16-vote requirement.
According to Tongol, if the vote results in a tie, the appeal would fail and Escudero’s original 16-vote ruling would remain in place.
Some senators have suggested that the Supreme Court should ultimately settle the constitutional question instead.
Senators JV Ejercito and Raffy Tulfo have both expressed support for having the high court resolve the issue, while other senators have urged the impeachment court to first hear the opinions of the constitutional experts.
Political stakes are high
The threshold controversy comes as the Senate impeachment trial moves into another critical phase.
The House prosecution recently ended its presentation of evidence for the confidential-funds article after withdrawing 15 remaining witnesses. Prosecutors have indicated that they may seek to call Vice President Sara Duterte herself to testify.
The impeachment case includes allegations involving the use and liquidation of confidential funds as well as allegations of unexplained wealth, among other accusations contained in the Articles of Impeachment.
Duterte has denied the allegations and is defending herself against the impeachment charges.
Meanwhile, groups on both sides of the political divide have sharply disagreed over whether changing the threshold would be constitutionally permissible. PDP-Laban, for example, has argued that lowering the 16-vote requirement would violate the Constitution.
Former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque’s former legal colleague and Duterte ally Salvador Panelo has likewise argued that changing the threshold would be unconstitutional.
The bigger question
The dispute is no longer simply about whether 10 or 16 senators can determine the outcome.
It raises a broader constitutional question: Can the Senate impeachment court change its interpretation of the voting requirement in the middle of an impeachment trial because some members cannot participate?
Pulong Duterte’s position is that a procedural majority should not automatically become a mechanism for changing a constitutional requirement. The Senate impeachment court, meanwhile, is seeking expert legal guidance before making its decision.
For now, 16 votes remains the operative requirement for conviction under Escudero’s ruling. The 10-vote figure applies to the separate procedural question of whether that ruling itself can be overturned.
And with the threshold issue heading toward a crucial September 23 vote, the Senate’s next decision could have consequences not only for Sara Duterte’s impeachment case but also for how future Philippine impeachment proceedings interpret the Constitution.
The real showdown, therefore, may not be the final vote on Sara Duterte’s fate—but the vote that determines what the rules will be when that final moment arrives.
Leave a Reply