MANILA — Davao City 1st District Rep. Paolo Duterte questioned the constitutionality of the impeachment court’s decision to revise the 16-vote threshold for convicting Vice President Sara Duterte, saying a majority vote does not necessarily make an interpretation constitutional.

“Majority vote does not automatically make an interpretation constitutional,” Paolo Duterte said in a statement Wednesday.

The impeachment court voted 13-1 to overturn Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s July 6 ruling that two-thirds of the full 24-member Senate, or 16 votes, was required to convict an impeached official.

Six senator-judges did not participate in the vote: Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Christopher “Bong” Go, Imee Marcos, Robin Padilla, and Camille Villar.

Escudero said the court’s new controlling order interprets the constitutional phrase “all the members of the Senate” to refer to senators who, at the time of the vote, are legally and factually capable of participating in the proceedings.

The order excludes from the voting base senators who are detained, suspended or otherwise legally restrained from exercising their functions; sought by authorities whose whereabouts are unknown; physically or medically incapacitated; beyond the coercive processes of the Senate; and others similarly situated.

Paolo Duterte said the Senate’s action raises a constitutional question over how “all the Members” is counted.

“The Constitution says conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of ALL the Members of the Senate. If the Senate adopts an interpretation that changes how ‘all the Members’ is counted, then that is no longer simply a matter of parliamentary arithmetic. It is a constitutional question,” he said.

He said such questions should ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

“And constitutional questions should ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court—not by whoever happens to have the numbers inside the chamber,” Paolo Duterte said.

He added that if the affected party brings the issue before the Supreme Court, the High Court should determine whether the Senate’s interpretation conforms with the Constitution.

“I hope to be proven wrong, kasi the way I see it, because of the race to become a member of the Gods of Padre Faura, naging bulag na ang hustisya sa Pilipinas,” he said.

Paolo Duterte also said his family would return to Davao if Sara Duterte were convicted.

“As for us, wala may problema sa amua. Manguli ra man mi sa Davao. Mabuhi ra mig inato—di pareha anang uban mga senador na ‘kamo nay describe sa comments’,” he said.

He ended by emphasizing the temporary nature of government positions compared with the Constitution.

“At the end of the day, positions in government are temporary. The Constitution is not.”