10/09/2026
Should the Impeachment Court reduce it's 2/3 Voting threshold??
Dean Mel Sta. Maria’s position is anchored on the constitutional supremacy of the two-thirds requirement under Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution: revisiting the 16-vote threshold is not “changing the rules in the middle of the game,” but the Senate sitting as an impeachment court exercising its constitutional duty to collectively correct, or at the very least hear arguments on, a potentially erroneous interpretation of what constitutes two-thirds of all its Members, because no party can claim a vested right to a constitutional mistake and procedural consistency must never prevail over fidelity to the Constitution and the ends of justice. He writes:
NOT CORRECT. The argument that to re-evaluate the "16" votes as representing 2/3 under the constitution is "changing the rules in the middle of the game" and therefore "dangerous" MISCOMPREHENDS the point. IT IS A MISCONCEPTION.
The reasons can easily be explained:
FIRST, let us be clear about what occurred on day one: when the Presiding Officer announced that 16 votes would be required, that declaration was itself an act of interpretation of the two-thirds requirement. It is absurd to contend that the entire body of senator-judges must forever bow to the initial interpretation of a single officer, rather than determining the true constitutional standard through the collective judgment of the majority. The issue is so important to depend only on the gratuitous opinion of one man. He is and ought not to act as a dictator NOT EVEN WANTING TO HEAR OUT THE REASONS FOR THE RE-ASSESSMENT.
SECOND, There is NO changing of the rules. One should not confuse changing the rules with correcting a constitutional interpretation. THe rule stays but its interpretation must be corrected. Parties are entitled to procedural fairness, but no one—neither the prosecution nor the defense—holds a vested right to an erroneous reading of the fundamental law. An initial administrative statement made on day one cannot chain the impeachment court to a constitutional mistake for the duration of the trial. Precisely because a contrary interpretation has been raised, it becomes the DUTY of the Senate-Judges led by the Senate Presiding Judge to re-evaluate it so that the ends of justice are served AND TO DECIDE ON THIS COLLECTIVELY AS A COURT.
THIRD. The authority of the senator-judges derives entirely from the Constitution, not from a preliminary announcement by the Presiding Officer. The Constitution is the supreme standard. If the threshold of "two-thirds of all the Members" was incorrectly calculated relative to the actual composition of the Senate, correcting that number honors the supreme law. To knowingly proceed under a flawed or at the very least, questionable or debatable standard violates the oath the senator-judges took to uphold the Constitution above all else.
FOURTH. Morally, a tribunal that shrug off casually a potential error is following the more dangerous route. The impeachment court has an immediate obligation to rectify a questionable application , or at the very least, HEAR ARGUMENTS in this regard. Refusing to re-examine a potential mistake under the pretext that "it is too late in the day" places procedural stubbornness above the truth. True integrity does not mean persisting in an error for the sake of consistency; it means having the courage to correct a course to ensure real justice is delivered.
![• May Pag-Asa[ Andres Bonifocacio ]• Piping Dilat / Siling Labuyo[ Marcelo Del Pilar ]• Taga Ilog[ Antonio Luna ]• Katab...](https://img4.medioq.com/931/467/1528474279314675.jpg)
