22/08/2026
WHY 2/3 FOR CONVICTION IS VARIABLE & NOT FIXED AT 16
The reasons are easily understandable:
FIRST: Article XI Section 3(6) merely provides: "No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate." It 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.
SECOND: "16" to convict is an absolute number. But IT IS NOT the textual requirement of the constitution. "2/3" is the constitutional mandate. If they wanted an absolute, unalterable floor, the framers could have easily provided "16 senators". Instead, they chose a percentage 2/3 because they recognized that the denominator of the Senate is dynamic, not static. By its very nature, 2/3 is alterable depending on the base.
THIRD: 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.;
FOURTH: The absolute interpretation allows a fugitive or a jailed individual to affect the impeachment trial from across the globe or inside a cell block. The law cannot be interpreted in a way that leads to an absurdity or rewards lawlessness.
FIFTH: 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.
SIXTH: The Constitution provides "members of the senate" and not "senators" directly. This has significance. After they have taken their oath, they transitioned from legislators to JUDGES. And when we talk of judges, the requirement of DUE PROCESS becomes even more highly significant. Due process requires that judges be PERSONALLY present when hearing a case. They cannot decide on cases which they do not know. Hence, the 2/3 requirement must be interpreted also in the light of the due process clause of the constitution. Personal presence and participation of judges.
SEVENTH: I agree with Ateneo Constitutional Law Professor Leo Camacho. He said that the principle of noscitur a sociis is applicable. This is the rule stating that 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 it. The Constitution provides that: "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. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate." The words , "SENATE", "SITTING FOR THAT PURPOSE", "ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE" must be harmonized.
Accordingly, "all members of the senate" who are "sitting" for the purpose of judging shall be the ones only included in the 2/3 votes. Those who are not present as judges cannot participate because they are not sitting as judges. This is the rational way to interpret the Constitution. This is also in line with due process as previously explained.
