Second petition challenging impeachment voting threshold reaches SC

MANILA, Philippines — Another petition has been filed before the Supreme Court to nullify the Sept. 23, 2026 ruling by the Senate Impeachment Court amending the voting threshold ruling to convict Vice President Sara Duterte.

In his 112-page petition, Atty. Ernesto Francisco Jr., requests that a Status Quo Ante Order be issued to halt the implementation of the new rule, arguing that the Senate acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by altering a clear constitutional mandate.

“Public respondent Senate Impeachment Court committed grave abuse of discretion when it allowed its members, Senator-Judges, to purportedly interpret the 1987 Constitution and deem the resulting interpretation arrived at by 13 of its Senator-Judges, as the new controlling rule on any judgment of conviction or acquittal that it will render,” read the petition.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Sara Duterte trial: Impeachment court amends threshold ruling

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Francisco’s petition is the second to question the validity of the Sept. 23 ruling of the Impeachment Tribunal.

Under the newly adopted controlling ruling, the phrase “all members of the Senate” was redefined to refer only to members who “remain legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings” at the time of the vote. 

The ruling excludes senators who are detained or suspended, persons sought by authorities whose whereabouts are unknown, individuals suffering from physical or medical incapacity, those beyond the Senate’s coercive processes, and others similarly situated.

Francisco said the Senate effectively undertook a constitutional amendment under the guise of interpretation. He argues that Article XI, Section 3(6) paired with Article VI, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution strictly requires 16 votes for conviction, as membership refers to constitutional status rather than actual physical attendance or capability.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Substituting ‘all members of the Senate’ with ‘those members who, at the time of the vote, remain legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings,’ constitutes a rewriting of the Constitution, which the public respondent Senate Impeachment Court cannot legally do,” Francisco said.

Francisco told the SC that the high court’s intervention is urgent prior to the final vote in the Vice President’s trial.

Article continues after this advertisement

Failure to do so, he said, “could lead to consequences that may further deepen political division of the Filipino people and likely give rise to serious political chaos and instability.”

Atty. Francisco, filing as a citizen, taxpayer, and member of the bar, clarified that his petition is direct, non-partisan, and aimed solely at upholding constitutional limits. The Supreme Court has yet to issue a directive or act on the prayer for a Status Quo Ante Order. /mr