16 VOTES OR NOT? BONDOC, FALCIS CLASH OVER ABSENT SENATORS’ IMPEACHMENT VOTES Atty. Jimmy Bondoc and Jesus Falcis clash over whether senators who are absent from Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment proceedings should still be included in the vote count. Bondoc warned that excluding senators could effectively lower the... denominator needed to reach a decision, which he said could be used to achieve political ends. Falcis, however, argued that a senator acting as a judge should not decide an impeachment case without having seen or heard the evidence. “No presence, with your absence, no participation, there should be no vote,” Falcis said, citing due process concerns. The two lawyers presented opposing views on how the Senate should treat absent senators when determining the outcome of the impeachment case. Watch the full discussion on #PolitikoTalks.show more

Bakit yung HOR, bumoto as required to impeach eh iilan lang naman sa kanila ang present during the House Committee on Justice mini trial? And is the impeachment REALLY 100% about the arguments? Sabi kayo ng sabi na it's sui generis & we all know there are behind the scenes tug-of-war for votes. 🙄 If you can't secure the 16 required, then you didn't meet the "political" requirement to convict. Parang election of Senate Officers lang 'to eh. Mine-mental gymnastics nanaman kahit malinaw ang nasa batas. (And it's from the same bunch of political personalities) #VPSaraOnTrial #SupremeCourtPH

Well said @jesusfalcis

The justice committee members heard her case and recommended to the plenary for voting. Non-justice committee just approved the impeachment. Apples to oranges comparison

common sense naman if wlang sa trial ang mga senador natural nde cla pwd bumoto at paano cla boboto if nde nila nasaksihan mga ebidencia eh wla cla sa loob ng court. susme naman

Bondoc is Baclaran market Francis Greenbelt 5 no contest

galing ng explanation ni Falcid

@jesusfalcis Tama si atty Falcis

@jesusfalcis Tama c falcis !!

Bondoc is ignorant. Kumanta ka na lang

Bakit ba kinkontra parin ng ibang lawyers at ibang dds vloogers di parin ba sapat Yung mga statement and explanation ng (azcuna) Isa sa mga primary author ng impeachment or court trail...sana matuloy Yung oral argument Yan para magkalaman sa Sept 23

Bakit lagi kinukuha ng bilyonaryo yan suspended na acla na yan? Ang baho ng itsura ewww!

@jesusfalcis Tama si Atty. Falcis. How can you decide intelligently if you haven’t seen the evidence or at least heard the witnesses!?

jusko naka televised di ba hahaha

If the constitutional provision is interpreted , the answer is 16 votes to convict even if only 20 senators actually participate in the final vote.

Tama si Atty. Falcis. Pano kung 10 sa mga senador ang na hospital at nawalan ng malay, pano maachieve ang 16 votes? If that's really what the rules of the constitution provides then at no point is there any reason to TRY an impeachable officer. Kase automatic na kulang votes

I do not agree with falcis. When creating bills, lahat ba ng senador na pumirma ay nasa bawat deliberation or meeting? Hindi diba? Madalas pinapaliwanag na lang ng mga aide nila. That is the nature of the senate.

16 votes ba nakalagay sa Consti? Nakalagay 2/3 votes of the present senators. Ilan ba ang present , taken their oath as senator judge, and heard the evidences. presented?

It is like approving a medical procedure blindly