FORMER SC JUSTICES’ INSIGHTS TO GUIDE DECISION ON VOTING THRESHOLD – LACSON

THE insights shared by three former Supreme Court Justices during their appearance before the Impeachment Court Wednesday left an “indelible” mark on Senator- Judge Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson and will help guide his decision when the Court votes next week on the disputed voting threshold for conviction.

Lacson said Thursday that he learned much from retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s discussion of “textual vs. contextual” interpretation, retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban’s emphasis on “truth and fairness,” and retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna’s interpretation of the phrase “all means all” in determining the threshold.

“Engaging in open court with three of the Court’s most esteemed former justices (including two former Chief Justices) was an unforgettable experience. Concepts like ‘textual vs. contextual,’ ‘truth and fairness,’ and ‘all means all’ certainly left an indelible mark on my mind and conscience. These insights will directly guide my decision next week,” he said on X.

During Wednesday’s proceedings, Puno expressed favor towards a “contextual” interpretation of the Constitution, saying the two-thirds requirement should not necessarily be treated as a fixed 16 votes when circumstances legally prevent a senator from functioning as a member of the Impeachment Court.

Panganiban said senators may interpret the Constitution in accordance with their mandate as representatives of the people, guided by “truth and fairness.” He also questioned whether senator-judges who had not participated in the trial should be included in the voting threshold.

For his part, Azcuna had a different position on the phrase “all the members of the Senate” in Article XI, Sec. 3 (6), saying that “As long as they are members of the Senate, they constitute the denominator in computing the threshold of two-thirds because all means all.”

Retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., in a memorandum read during Wednesday’s proceedings, also said that the basis of computing the two-thirds must be the number of senators “who are qualified to vote.”

Lacson, in his interjection Wednesday, asked Panganiban how the Impeachment Court can ensure the “fairness and truth” he cited when nine senator-judges could not attend the impeachment trial, leaving only 15 – one short of the 16 votes to represent two-thirds of all Senate members required for conviction.

The senator-judges are to vote next week whether to uphold or modify the ruling of Impeachment Court presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero that 16 votes are required for conviction, based on the Constitution’s provision that “no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”

The issue was raised after Sen. Erwin Tulfo appealed Escudero’s initial ruling on the voting threshold.