Lacson takes swipe at colleague for 'lecturing' senator-judges 

Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Wednesday lauded his fellow senator-judges for “keeping their cool” despite supposed lectures from one of their colleagues during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a post on X, Lacson raised doubts that being a nonlawyer would make senator-judges less judicious in making a fair judgement.

“Day 3: I commend my fellow senator-judges for keeping our cool and not engage a colleague who has been lecturing us since Day 1 of the impeachment trial, as if being not members of the bar, we will be less judicious in rendering fair judgment,” he said.

Lacson, however, did not name the senator-judge he was referring to.

At the start of Wednesday’s trial, Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano underscored the need to strictly observe the trial rules.

“Why are we being strict about the rules? Why do I have to bother standing up? Well because nothing in this world will run well without the rules,” she said.

“That’s why we have to stand up and call the attention of the presiding officer when we feel that the rules are violated, and we will continue to do so when we believe it is necessary in the interest of justice,” she added.

On the second day of the trial, Pia Cayetano appealed to Senate impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero to admonish senator-judges against asking what she described as "unfair questions."

This came after Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros asked why Duterte's remarks during a November 2024 press conference, as well as the statements she made in a separate October 2024 briefing, should be considered impeachable offenses under the Articles of Impeachment.

Article IV specifically centers on the alleged grave threats and an assassination plot by the Vice President against President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez.

16-vote threshold

At the same time, Lacson said that questions regarding the conviction threshold have now been clarified after Escudero's response on Tuesday’s trial, noting that any party that believes the impeachment court committed grave abuse of discretion may question it before the Supreme Court.

“Ngayong settled at maliwanag na ang issue ay isa nang justiciable issue or controversy - kung merong party na gustong kwestyunin sa Korte Suprema kung sa tingin nila ay may 'grave abuse of discretion' ang impeachment court, malaya silang gawin ‘yun,” he said.

(Now that the matter is settled and it is clear that it constitutes a justiciable issue or controversy, any party who wants to challenge the impeachment court before the Supreme Court—on the grounds of alleged ‘grave abuse of discretion’—is free to do so.)

“Hindi ako tutol, bagkus nakikiisa ako sa pananaw na dapat 16 talaga ang bilang sa ngayon dahil kahit may nakakulong at nagtatago, kasama pa rin sila sa bilang ng 24 senators under the 20th Congress,” he added.

(I am not against it, in fact, I share the view that 16 votes are needed to convict because even if there are senators who are detained and in hiding, they are still considered senators in the 20th Congress.)

Escudero has stood by his earlier ruling that at least 16 affirmative votes from senator-judges are needed to convict Duterte in her impeachment trial.

The issue was raised after Lacson sought clarification on whether Escudero's statement on Monday regarding the voting threshold was merely his legal opinion or an official ruling of the impeachment court.

On Monday, Escudero said that under the 1987 Constitution, no person shall be convicted in an impeachment trial without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.

With the Senate composed of 24 members, Escudero said a literal interpretation of the constitutional provision means conviction requires at least 16 affirmative votes from senator-judges. — RSJ, GMA News