MANILA — Lawyer Dean Mel Sta. Maria said the commonly cited requirement of 16 votes to secure a conviction in an impeachment trial should not be treated as an absolute standard, arguing that the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of senators and not a fixed number.

In a statement, Sta. Maria pointed to Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Constitution, which states that no person may be convicted in an impeachment case without the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate.

He argued that the provision “DOES NOT state ‘2/3 of all the members of the senate regardless of his or her inability to be present or to vote’.”

While acknowledging the legal principle that distinctions should not be made when the law does not distinguish, Sta. Maria said the rule should not be applied in a way that produces unreasonable results.

“The constitution DOES NOT OPERATE BY LEGAL FICTION. It cannot count a physical vote of persons not physically present. Remember: an abstention or non-voting in an impeachment proceeding is the same as a vote for acquittal. To count or even consider what is not there or what was not given is an illusion,” he said.

According to Sta. Maria, the constitutional requirement is a two-thirds vote rather than a fixed number because the total number of senators available to vote may vary.

“’16’ to convict is an absolute number. But IT IS NOT the textual requirement of the constitution. ‘2/3′ is the constitutional requisite. If they wanted an absolute, unalterable floor, the framers could have easily provided ’16 senators’. Instead, they chose a percentage 2/3 because they recognized that the denominator of the Senate is dynamic, not static,” he said.

Sta. Maria also argued that treating 16 votes as an unchanging requirement could create a situation where a respondent in an impeachment case would only need to prevent a sufficient number of senators from participating in the proceedings.

“If 16 is fixed, an official facing impeachment does not need to convince the Senate of their innocence. They only need to convince 9 senators to hide, flee the country, or simply refuse to show up,” he said.

He added that such an interpretation would allow absent senators to effectively contribute to an acquittal without taking part in the trial or examining the evidence.

Sta. Maria further said a strict 16-vote requirement could lead to situations in which senators who are fugitives or detained could still affect the outcome of an impeachment proceeding through their absence.

“The law cannot be interpreted in a way that leads to an absurdity or rewards lawlessness,” he said.

He maintained that the Constitution’s use of a two-thirds threshold serves as a safeguard that keeps the standard for conviction high while ensuring that it remains attainable.

“The use of ‘two-thirds’ instead of ’16’ is the Constitution’s built-in safety valve. It acknowledges that while the hurdle to convict must always be high, it must never be impossible,” Sta. Maria said.