How many senators needed to remove VP Sara?

The impeachment court arrives at a crucial crossroads in the case of Vice President Sara Duterte. It’s confronting itself with a pivotal question: What is the total number of senator-judges required to render a decision to remove VP Sara as our nation’s vice president and to permanently disqualify her from holding any other public office?

The impeachment court has appointed four retired Supreme Court justices as amicus curiae, friends of the court, who will share their expert opinions to guide the senator-judges in coming up with the correct measurement of their votes.

The most convenient choice for the impeachment court is to apply the literal wordings of the Philippine Constitution, which clearly state that “the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate” is required to convict VP Sara and remove her from office. Under this rigid application of the letter of the law, the basis for computation is the absolute total number of 24 senators and, therefore, the required two-thirds vote to remove VP Sara is 16 senator-judges.

However, this kind of literal interpretation will disregard any permanent or temporary vacancy among senators, which may arise by reason of death, resignation, disqualification, or suspension. Theoretically, if another lethal pandemic happens like COVID-19, causing the death of 10 senators and leaving 14 senators remaining, the required number of votes to convict an impeached public official is still 16 under this interpretation. It then becomes impossible to obtain a decision of conviction, and an impeached official will be acquitted regardless of how strong the evidence against him/her is.

But why should we concern ourselves with the hypothetical death of 10 senators when we currently have all the 24 elected senators alive? This is because, by the nature of the issue at hand, the impeachment court is duty-bound to make a ruling that will uniformly apply to all impeachment cases now or in the future. The impeachment court will perform a task, like that performed by the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution and make a ruling that will be the law of the land on impeachment matters.

There are several existing factual circumstances attendant to VP Sara’s impeachment case that put into question the issue of whether the computation should be based on 24 senators. These existing factual circumstances may not be as dramatic as the theoretical death of 10 senators, but they equally put into question the correctness of adopting 24 senators as basis of computation.

The first factual circumstance is the case of Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa who did not take his oath as a senator-judge when the rest of the senators took their oaths when the Senate convened as an impeachment court on May 18, 2026. Dela Rosa went into hiding after he escaped from the Senate premises on May 14, 2026, during the botched attempt to serve the International Criminal Court warrant of arrest against him. Since Dela Rosa did not take his oath as senator-judge, he cannot be added to the total number of senators who can vote and decide, because it is legally impossible for him to perform the duties of a senator-judge.

The second factual circumstance consists of the similar predicament of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and Sen. Rodante Marcoleta. These two senators were able to take their oaths as senator-judges because they were arrested after the Senate had already convened as an impeachment court on May 18, 2026. Estrada was arrested on June 1, 2026, while Marcoleta was arrested on July 6, 2026. However, both Estrada and Marcoleta are under detention because they are facing criminal charges of plunder. Two laws Republic Act No. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Act) and Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) provide that any official charged with the kind of crime faced by the two senators shall be suspended while their cases are pending. Estrada and Marcoleta cannot be added to the total number of senators who can decide because, by law, they are prohibited from performing the job of a senator-judge.

The third factual circumstance is the case of Sen. Loren Legarda. Unlike the earlier named three senators, Legarda has taken her oath, and she has no criminal case and arrest warrant so far. The Ombudsman is still subjecting her to a preliminary investigation. The example of Legarda must prompt the impeachment court to additionally decide the issue of whether a senator-judge who skips the bulk of the hearings and fails to perform the duty of personally listening to the witnesses and assessing their demeanor should be counted in the number of senator-judges allowed to vote. The impeachment court must also decide on whether a senator-judge who is not personally present when the court decides should be included in the computation of the two-thirds vote.

The senator-judges will have two choices in the end. They will follow the rigid and literal words of the Constitution even if they lead to unjust results. Or they will breathe life into the words of the Constitution by infusing them with common sense, applying its spirit and intent, and imbuing its words with reason.