Question: When is a fraction, say 2/3, more powerful than a whole number, say 24? Answer: In the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
This is the conclusion one can draw from the Senate's decision to count only those who are legally and factually capable of participating in the voting in determining the 2/3 needed to convict.
At present, 4 of the 24 senators are not participating, leaving 20 participating/eligible senator-judges. Two-thirds of 20=13.33. This is rounded up to 14. This is the required number of votes to convict VP Sara.
The denominator can change depending on how many can participate, but the proportion needed to convict stays at 2/3.
In the previous Constitution, this was 3/4. Obviously, the framers of the 1987 Constitution wanted impeachment easier by reducing the fraction.
What the framers failed to account for was the definition of all the members of the Senate. They could have added the ability to participate legally and factually.
Since the framers did not include this definition, the present Senate had to exercise its constitutional power to make its own rules.
It is, however, a curious situation because those who cannot participate all have a common characteristic.
They all belong to the Opposition. No one comes from the Administration or parties supporting the President.
What has happened is that President Marcos's administration has, in fact, determined the participating Senators.
This means that the Administration has helped shape the standard or threshold of conviction.
Before this spate of being in prison, being in hiding, and being out of the country, the arithmetic was clear. Sixteen votes are needed to convict. Now it is down to 14. It might even go lower.
What seemed a remote possibility a few months ago is now a vivid reality.
Will the Opposition senators challenge the decision before the Supreme Court?
It is a long shot that they would be heard by the Supreme Court, but it is better to test the waters. Anything that goes at the heart of our democratic way of life should be justiciable.
A very important interpretation of a vital part of the Constitution is at issue. Lesser concerns have been brought to its attention. This one should not go by without serving as an example and yardstick for future similar situations.
#Opinyon #WeTakeAStand #IAmBack