The Philippine Constitution requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate to convict an impeached official. The Senate consists of 24 senators. Two-thirds is 16.
That’s simple enough, right? Maybe not.
There are 24 members of the Senate but there aren’t 24 senators sitting as senator-judges. With two in detention, one in hiding and one on medical leave, only 20 are actively participating in the trial.
What does “all members” of the Senate really mean? The nominal membership of 24? Or the actual working membership of 20? If we are to be pedantic, it would be 24. But if we are to be pragmatic, it would be 20.
You may have the job title but if you don’t report for work, should you continue to enjoy the privileges of your position? A paycheck and a vote?
Can absentee members of the Senate competently render judgement in an impeachment trial they have skipped? Wouldn’t it be absurd to grant them the privilege to vote on the assumption they can examine evidence remotely when no proof can be had?
Bato dela Rosa has been in hiding for ten months, surfacing only to vote for a change in Senate leadership. Jinggoy Estrada has been in detention for three and a half months, Rodante Marcoleta, two and a half months. Loren Legarda has been on medical leave for one and a half months.
Out of the 26 trial days, Bato, Estrada and Marcoleta attended zero days while Legarda attended only 10 out of 26. It’s neither logical nor moral to count them as part of the denominator to arrive at the magic number for two-thirds when, in fact, they no longer perform their duties as senator.
In a regular work setting, a prolonged absence at work can be grounds for dismissal while on jury duty, one is usually replaced after an absence of more than 24 hours.
But if we are to be pedantic, we can insist on 16.
It’s what the Constitution states. Not really. The Constitution says two-thirds of “all members” of the Senate not “16.” When there is room for ambiguity, there is room for interpretation.
When doubt finds its way in, dogma walks out the door.
The framers of the Constitution could not have meant for “all members” of the Senate to include the mentally and physically ill or incapacitated, the detained, the charged, the convicted, the resigned, the expelled, the dead or those in hiding—even if they were part of the 24.
“All members” of the Senate presumably means only those able, qualified and available to vote. Insisting on 24 is the perfect example of the Biblical clash between the “letter” and the “spirit” of the law.
I would like to believe that as God wanted us to follow the “spirit” rather than the “letter” of the law, the framers of the Constitution wanted us to put “context” over “text.” If they wanted us to strictly follow the text, they would have cast “16” in stone. They would not have left room for interpretation.
The argument that 16 is deliberately set in stone to prevent manipulation can be decimated by the argument that rigidity can equally serve as a tool for manipulation.
The goal of impeachment is protective rather than punitive. Its goal is not to mete out a fine or to send someone to jail but to remove a public official who has abused authority and violated public trust.
We protect the public not by fixating on the “letter” but rather on embracing the “spirit” of the law.
God gave us intellect and free will because he wanted us to think and choose for ourselves. The framers of the Constitution chose ambiguity over certainty for a purpose.
The magic number is the number that serves the public good.
