MANILA—House impeachment prosecutors said they are concentrating on presenting evidence strong enough to secure the conviction of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, regardless of the number of votes the Senate impeachment court eventually determines to be required.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua, a member of the prosecution panel, said the team’s priority is to persuade senator-judges through the evidence while also making its case before the public.

“Whether ito ay 16, 15, 14, kami ay naghahanda para maipakita ang ebidensya nang sa ganoon ay makumbinsi natin sila sa tibay ng ebidensya,” Chua said at a press briefing.

“At the end of the day, hindi lang naman ang mga senator-judges ang ating audience dito, bagkus pati ang taong bayan,” he added.

The Constitution provides that conviction in an impeachment case requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all Senate members. With 24 senators, Senate President and impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero initially placed the threshold at 16 votes.

However, the nonparticipation of several senator-judges has prompted debate over which senators should be included in determining the two-thirds requirement.

The impeachment court sought the views of former Chief Justices Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno and Hilario Davide Jr., along with retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, as amici curiae, or friends of the court. The retired magistrates were asked to provide expert opinions on the disputed threshold ahead of the scheduled arguments by the prosecution and defense on Sept. 23.

Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, spokesperson for the House impeachment team, said the proceedings are not seeking to alter the Constitution’s two-thirds requirement but to determine how the requirement should be applied under the Senate’s current circumstances.

“Wala pong iniiba sa two-thirds na requirement ng Constitution,” Alonto Adiong said.

“Ang naka-fix po is ’yung two-thirds. Ang pag-usapan po natin, paano po natin i-apply ’yung two-thirds doon sa kabuuang miyembro ng Senado para makuha po natin ’yung two-thirds na boto,” he added.

Three of the four retired magistrates who gave their views Wednesday — Panganiban, Puno and Davide — said the 16-vote threshold does not necessarily have to remain. Azcuna, meanwhile, said every sitting senator should be included in the count unless a senator dies, resigns or is removed from office.

Alonto Adiong rejected the notion that any reduction in the actual number of votes needed would amount to an arbitrary lowering of the conviction threshold.

“’Yung pag-lower down ng actual number, it’s not actually arbitrary. It should not be taken as, dahil gusto lang naming i-lower ’yung number. Hindi po,” he said.

“Wala pong naiba dito. Ang naiiba lang po is how to interpret ’yung two-thirds,” he added.

Chua said the Senate impeachment court has the authority to resolve the dispute over the applicable threshold.

“Maliwanag ’yung sinabi ng lahat ng magistrado kahapon na ang discretion whether to fix the threshold to 16 or ibababa ito ay nasa kamay ng Senado,” he said.

He said the court’s decision to seek the retired magistrates’ opinions before ruling demonstrated due diligence. Alonto Adiong likewise said the impeachment court was taking a cautious approach.

“Very cautious sila na before they arrive into a final decision, gusto nilang makonsulta ang mga mahistrado natin,” he said.

The prosecution and defense are set to present their respective arguments on the voting threshold before the impeachment court on Sept. 23.

Meanwhile, prosecutors have already completed the presentation of evidence for two of the four impeachment charges against Duterte: Article IV, involving alleged grave threats, and Article I, concerning alleged misuse of confidential funds.

The prosecution is currently presenting its case under Article II, which involves allegations of unexplained wealth. Prosecutors have started submitting Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and other government records, with corporate and financial documents expected to follow.

Article III, which covers allegations of bribery, has yet to be presented.