What amici curiae said about the two-thirds vote to convict an impeachable official

Former Supreme Court (SC) chief justices Artemio Panganiban, Hilario Davide, Reynato Puno, and Adolfo Azcuna on Wednesday gave their thoughts on the voting threshold required to convict an impeachable official.

Here's what they said:

"The basis of computing the two-thirds must be the number of senators who are qualified to vote, not the twenty-four (24) in the present senate."

Artemio Panganiban

"Constitutional interpretation cannot always stop at abstract Mathematics. We must look at the intent and purpose of the Constitutional provisions, the circumstances in which they operate, and the goals they seek to achieve."

"Fairness [in judgment] can be rendered by two-thirds of those present [Senators]. It's not necessary that 16 should vote in favor, because it's impossible to get 16...Our people deserves still to be given justice. Because the 15 present can still act and render justice, and be able to discipline whoever is to be disciplined."

Reynato Puno

"Article XI, Section 3(6) should have simply stated that the number of votes to convict is 16, period, but it did not say so. Instead, the language used a fraction. It says two-thirds of all members of the Senate."

Adolfo Azcuna

"No person shall be convicted in an impeachment case without the occurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate."

"Because the question of the interpretation of the two-thirds is a procedural matter. And procedural matters can be retroactive. There is no vested right to a procedure. So the rule is if it's procedural, it can be applied to pending cases. So even if the trial has already started and you change the interpretation of the presiding officer, I think there is no violation of the due process."

—VAL/RF, GMA News