MANILA— The prosecution in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte said it is hopeful that the Supreme Court will dismiss a petition filed by several senator-judges challenging the constitutionality of the Senate impeachment court’s ruling on the number of senators who should be counted for the required vote to convict.

Prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan made the statement after senator-judges Christopher “Bong” Go and Robin Padilla asked the Supreme Court to nullify the impeachment court’s earlier ruling that the two-thirds vote needed to convict Duterte would be based on senators who are “capable of participating” when the verdict is taken.

“It’s a matter of right if they want to file… Hopefully, we will also get a good decision there, a dismissal of the case because wala namang grave abuse,” Kapunan told reporters on the sidelines of the impeachment trial.

“It is still premature because the right time to question it is when there is a final vote on acquittal or conviction,” she said.

The Supreme Court had previously dismissed a similar challenge after finding that the private individuals who filed it were not parties to the impeachment proceedings. It also ruled that the petition was premature because the impeachment court had yet to conduct an actual vote where the challenged rule would apply.

Prosecution spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. declined to say whether Go and Padilla’s move indicated partiality toward Duterte, saying the prosecution respects actions taken by the respondent or other parties to pursue available remedies.

“Everyone has their right to pursue remedies that they feel are allowed under the rules,” he said.

“But it doesn’t change the fact that we stand by our decision that the court’s ruling was proper and is grounded on strong legal and jurisprudential basis.”

The Supreme Court En Banc had dismissed three separate petitions in September challenging the Senate Impeachment Court’s interpretation of the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote to convict in an impeachment case.

The petitions were filed by Victor D. Rodriguez, Berteni Cataluña Causing and lawyer Ernesto B. Francisco Jr. in relation to the impeachment court’s Sept. 23 ruling.

The high court acted on the petitions during its En Banc session on Sept. 30, 2026.

The impeachment court had interpreted the phrase “all the Members of the Senate” under Article XI, Section 3(6) of the Constitution as referring only to senators who are legally and actually able to participate in the proceedings when the vote is taken.

Rodriguez argued that the interpretation effectively amended the Constitution by adding a qualification that was not contained in its text. He asked the Supreme Court to nullify the ruling and declare that any change to the constitutional provision must follow the prescribed process for amendment or revision. He also sought a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the Senate ruling.

Causing argued that senators who remain in office should still be included in the count even if they are in hiding, detained or medically unable to attend the proceedings.

He sought a status quo ante order and/or temporary restraining order to prevent the impeachment court from holding a final vote on Duterte’s conviction while his petition was pending.

Causing also asked the Supreme Court to compel Senators Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada Jr., Rodante Marcoleta and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa to participate in the impeachment trial and direct the Senate to take measures to secure their attendance.

Francisco similarly argued that the Constitution’s provision for a 24-member Senate means at least 16 senator-judges must concur for a conviction.

He maintained that senators who are detained, on medical leave or temporarily absent remain members of the Senate and should therefore be counted in determining the required vote. He likewise sought a status quo ante order while his petition was pending.

The Supreme Court dismissed all three petitions on procedural grounds, including lack of standing and prematurity.