[Newspoint] Sitting for what purpose?

As of this writing, four of the 24 senators are not actually 'sitting for the purpose' intended by the Constitution, as judges in an impeachment trial The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has sparked extensive debate among lawyers and pundits regarding the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote to convict an impeached official. Mel Sta. Maria argues that the two-thirds requirement should be based on the actual number of senators present and able to vote, rather than the total number of senators, which is affected by absences due to various reasons. With four senators not participating in the trial, Sta. Maria concludes that the effective threshold for conviction is 14 votes, emphasizing that the Constitution must be interpreted in a way that reflects reality. This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors. I’ve never seen the law, and anything that could be connected to it, however tenuously, quarreled over so interminably as in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. I guess one ought not to have been surprised. It was something bound to happen on any occasion that collects lawyers, politicians, and pundits. Being no lawyer or politician myself but just a journalist, although, again, one not exactly invulnerable to the temptations of punditry, I’m careful not to overreach, careful not to weigh in, not without independent expert support, at least. Otherwise, I always proceed from a simple precept in my appreciation of the law — no law has any place in the books that cannot stand on moral grounds and to reason — but still, I try to keep what I think to myself. That’s why I feel not just affirmed but validated with authority by Mel Sta. Maria in guessing where the impeachment trial might be going. Sta. Maria happens to be a former dean of law and also happens to speak my own language, thus able to make himself clear to me. He has sent me his discussion of the question that matters ultimately: What constitutes the two-thirds vote required to find an impeached official guilty? Sta. Maria prefaces his communication to me with the applicable constitutional passage: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When SITTING FOR THAT PURPOSE, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation…. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.” The two capitalized phrases make for the point around which the contention centers — the capitalization is all Sta. Maria’s, as well as all the typographical renderings of the other utterances I ascribe to him in quotation marks. The position taken opposite Sta. Maria’s — and mine too, as it happens — is that the applicable rule is cast in stone: The guilt of the impeached is decided by 16 votes — 16 being presumed as the absolute, unalterable number that represents “two thirds” of “all members of the Senate” sitting in judgment, in turn presumed to be represented by the absolute, unalterable base number 24. These representations are plainly contradicted by reality. As of this writing, four of the 24 senators are not actually “sitting for the purpose” intended by the Constitution, as judges in an impeachment trial. Indeed, they are unable to fulfil that duty: one is in hiding as a fugitive from the law, two are in detention on the non-bailable charge of plunder, thus likely sitting in jail while on trial, and one is in France on an indefinite medical leave officially but, being potentially liable for graft, is suspected seeking asylum there. Argues Sta. Maria: “[The Constitution] DOES NOT state ‘2/3 of all the members of the Senate regardless of his or her inability to be present or to vote.’ While there is a rule that ‘when the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish,’ this rule must not be used in its absurdity. The Constitution DOES NOT OPERATE BY LEGAL FICTION. It cannot count a physical vote of persons not physically present. Remember: an abstention or non-voting in an impeachment proceeding is the same as a vote for acquittal. To count or even consider what is not there or what was not given is an illusion. The Constitution must be interpreted contextually and legally in light with reality. The base therefore of the 2/3 vote must conform to what is achievable, not desirable.” He goes on to portray a scenario only too practical and realistic in the not abnormally corrupt Philippine setting: “If 16 is fixed, an official facing impeachment does not need to convince the Senate of their innocence. They only need to convince 9 senators to hide, flee the country, or simply refuse to show up. By rendering themselves absent, those 9 senators effectively cast a vote for acquittal without ever having to sit through the trial, look at the evidence, or face the public. This could not have been the contemplation of the Constitution. The Constitution cannot be interpreted to mean providing the mechanism for its own destruction. “The use of ‘two-thirds’ instead of ‘16’ is the Constitution’s built-in safety valve. It acknowledges that while the hurdle to convict must always be high, it must never be impossible.” Finally, Sta. Maria credits Leo Camacho, a professor of constitutional law at the Ateneo, for reminding his fellows of noscitur a sociis. It is a legal maxim, in Latin, whose felicity strikes at the very heart of the matter: “A word is known by the company it keeps.” Pursuing Camacho, Sta. Maria continues: “…words and phrases in the Constitution should not be interpreted in isolation but must be construed in the light of the words and phrases surrounding them. The words, ‘SENATE,’ ‘SITTING FOR THAT PURPOSE,’ ‘ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE” must be harmonized.” At any rate, by his reckoning, with four senators sitting elsewhere than in the impeachment court, the threshold vote for conviction comes down to 14. Sta. Maria’s full discussion is on Facebook. – Rappler.com How does this make you feel? Loading