With the impending impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, a side legal issue has emerged: how many senators are required to secure a conviction? At first glance, the pertinent provision of the Constitution appears clear: “No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.” The Senate has 24 members, and two-thirds of 24 is 16. However, with two senators unable to participate in the trial—one reportedly in hiding and another in prison—a new question arises. Should the required number be two-thirds of all senators (16) or two-thirds of those who can actually participate (which would be 15)?
Two Legal Interpretations Emerge
Each of the two possible answers is supported by legal luminaries, who advance their own arguments. Those who argue that the number remains 16 point to the letter of the Constitution itself. They contend that no distinction should be made where the text makes none. Opposed to this view is the position that the changing context, which was not foreseen by the Constitutional Commission, necessitates at least another look at the provision.
The author, a student of hermeneutics (the philosophy of interpretation), offers commentary on the issue. He notes that some lawyers, in what he describes as “thinly veiled hubris,” engage in the weaponization of credentials and dismiss opinions of those without legal training. However, he acknowledges that such lawyers are few, and the more brilliant ones can explain concepts without resorting to esoteric jargon.
Original Intent vs. Evolving Meaning
Many lawyers, drawing from lessons on statutory construction, believe that the only valid methodology of interpreting the law is to retrieve the meaning intended by the lawgiver. In other words, we need to know what the Constitution meant at the time of its drafting before determining what it means today. When a particular constitutional issue arises, lawyers often dig up the minutes of the Constitutional Commission.
But for students of hermeneutics, it is common to assert that while the original meaning is an important guide, we cannot be tied to it. The meaning of a text evolves, and the author can no longer control how the text is understood. The author cites the biblical passage, “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” Originally, this likely referred to knowing Jesus as the incarnation of truth. Today, it is almost universally interpreted without reference to faith, meaning that acceptance of the truth is liberating.
Precedent of the Estrada Ouster
The author points to the ouster of President Joseph Estrada in 2001 as a precedent where the courts decided beyond literality. Under the 1987 Constitution, a President ceases to hold office only if he dies, is convicted in an impeachment trial, resigns, or is declared incapacitated. None of these scenarios occurred in Estrada’s case. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, in a decision penned by Justice Reynato Puno, concluded that Estrada had actively resigned. The decision stated that the whole context must be considered, even though that particular historical context could not have been foreseen by the Constitutional Commissioners in 1987. Strictly speaking, “active resignation” was a novel concept.
The author further cites a concurring opinion by Justice Jose Vitug: “More than just an eloquent piece of frozen document, the Constitution should be deemed to be a living testament and memorial of the sovereign will of the people… Certainly, this fundamental statement is not without meaning. Nourished by it, it grows and copes with changing milieu. The framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated all conditions that might arise in the aftermath of events… The Constitution cannot be permitted to deteriorate into just a petrified code of legal maxims and hand-tied to its restrictive letters and wordings, rather than the pulsating law that it is.”
Unanswered Questions
The author acknowledges that further questions remain, such as how to avoid relativism—the idea that any interpretation is as good as another. He suggests that the justices are there to determine whether an interpretation is part of the evolution of meaning or an outright distortion.
