XI.
Impeachment: Impeachable Officers
Who is an impeachable officer?
a. Secretary of Justice
b. Over-all Deputy Ombudsman
c. Vice-President of the Philippines
d. Chairman of the Commission on
Human Rights
Art. XI
Sec. 2. The President, the Vice-President, the members of
the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
All other public officers and employees may be removed
from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
Impeachable Officers (EXCLUSIVE, NO LAW CAN BE PASSED
ADDING TO THE LIST
•President 1
•Vice-President 1
•Members of the Supreme Court 15
•Members of the 3 Constitutional
Commissions ( ) 13 TOTAL IS
IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CHR
31
•Ombudsman (HIMSELF ONLY IS IMPEACHABLE.. DEPUTY
OMBUDSMAN ARE NOT INCLUSIVE DESPITE THE MANNER OF
Grounds for Impeachment CTB GHB
•Culpable violation of the Constitution
•Treason
•Bribery
•Graft and corruption
•Other high crimes
•Betrayal of public trust –NEED NOT BE A CRIME
Francisco: Determination OF WHAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE is Political
Question
-a impeachment complaint against davide was filed for misuse of JDF funds…. It was raised that misuse of JDF
funds is not an impeachable offense.. Held: the determination of what constitute an impeachable offense is a
POLITICAL QUESTION- IT HAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE HOUSE AND SENATE
Section 3.
1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all
cases of impeachment.
2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the
House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or
endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order
of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within
three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority
vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session
days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The
resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session
days from receipt thereof.
3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall
be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles
of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution.
The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by
at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the
Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
No impeachment proceedings shall be
5)
initiated against the same official more than
once within a period of one year.
6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or
affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted
without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal
from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the
Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.
8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively
carry out the purpose of this section.
Procedure
•There must be a verified complaint filed by
any member of the House or by any citizen
with a resolution of endorsement from a
House member
IF FILED BY A HOUSE MEMBER-NO NEED OF RESOULTION
IF FILED BY ANY CITIZEN-RESOLUTION OF ENDORSMENT IS A MUST OR IT MUST BE ENDORSED
verification is a very important component!
•Within 10 days, it shall be included in the
order of business and referred to the proper
committee within 3 days from inclusion
3. Within 60 session days, the committee shall
forward its report with the committee resolution
4. Within 10 days, the House shall calendar it for
resolution
[Link] committee resolution can be affirmed or
overruled by 1/3 of the members of the House
Can the procedure be avoided? Yes! In case the verified complaint or
resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House , the same shall constitute the
Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed- this what happened in CORONA CASE…. 1/3
of all the members of the house filed a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment.!!!!!!!!! It not go with the committee
anymore…. Refferal to the committee can be avoided if this procedure is done..
If the committee found the complaint insufficient in substance- 1/3 can reverse the committee.. This is one of the
instances where 1/3 vote is controlling. If committee find the complaint sufficient in form and substance,, the 2/3 moved
for the dismissal of resolution but 1/3 voted to proceed the complaint- 1/3 shall prevail…….
Purpose is to make the initiation or filing of impeachment easy
Sec. 3 (1). The House of Representatives shall have
the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment.
Sec. 3 (5). No impeachment proceedings shall be
initiated against the same official more than once
within a period of one year.
Filing in House or Senate?
Davide Impeachment
June 2, 2003 – Estrada comp. –
Dismissed (INSUFFICIENCY IN
SUBSTANCE) Oct. 22/03
THIS WAS ON THE GROUND OF CULPABLE VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION
Oct. 23, 2003 – JDF complaint signed by
1/3
THIS WAS INITIATED BY GIBO TEODORO FOR MISUSE OF JDF FUNDS
IS IT NOW A SECOND COMPLAINT
INTITIATED IN THE HOUSE? YES!
Initiation takes place by the act of filing of
Gutierrez Impeachment
July 22 – Ist Complaint [culpable
violation]
Aug. 2 – 2nd Complaint [culpable
violation]
Aug. 11 – simultaneously referred to the
Committee on Justice
Committee found both sufficient –
violation?
There is no violation. While there were 2 complaints successively filed, both were referred simultaenously to
the committee... Hence, there is no violation on Sec. 3 (5). No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
A complaint for impeachment was filed against A, a COMELEC
Commissioner, for bribery, before the House of Representative on Jan
10, which it referred to the Committee on Justice on Jan. 20, 2011 .
After deliberation, the Committee dismissed it for insufficiency in form
and substance. On Feb. 20, 2011, another complaint, for treason, was
filed in the House and referred to the Committee. This time the
Committee found it sufficient in form and substance and the House
approved the resolution for its filing by 2/3 majority. When the Articles of
Impeachment was filed in the Senate, A moved to dismiss it on the
ground that no 2nd complaint for impeachment can be initiated against
him within one year. Is A correct?
YES! IT SHOULD BE DISMISSED. Initiation takes place by the act of
filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee
on Justice.
•Yes, because there was a violation of the rule regarding the
filing of a a 2nd complaint within one year
•No, because the first complaint was not found by the
Committee to be sufficient in form and substance
•No, because what is prohibited by the Constitution is the filing
of 2 Articles of Impeachment against the same official within one
year
•No, because the grounds invoked in the two complaints are
totally different and independent of each other
For purposes of the “one-complaint in one year rule”, an
impeachment complaint is deemed initiated:
•Upon the filing of the complaint by a Member or any citizen with the
House of Representatives
•By the filing of the complaint with the House of Representative and
referral to the House Committee on Justice
•When one-third of the House of Representatives votes to affirm or
overrule the Committee Report
•When an Articles of Impeachment is actually filed in the Senate for
Trial
Bar Exam 2011
28. Upon endorsement from the
Senate where it was first mistakenly
filed, the House Representatives
Committee on Justice found the
verified complaint for impeachment
against the President sufficient in
form but insufficient in substance.
Within the same year, another
•No, “initiated” means the Articles of Impeachment have
been actually filed with the Senate for trial; this did not yet
happen
•No, the first complaint was not yet initiated because it was
originally filed with the Senate
•Yes, the dismissal of the first impeachment proceeding
bars the initiation of another during the same term of the
President
•Yes, no impeachment proceeding can be filed against the
President more than once within a year
Gutierrez Case:
Must the Impeachment Rules of the
House or the Senate be published?-
publication in the internet of the rules is
allowed.. REMEMBER. The Congress shall
promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the
purpose of this section.
DISTINGUISH THE WORD “
PROMULGATE ITS RULES” FROM “ THE
SENATE SHALL PUBLISH”
Penalties for conviction
•Removal-MANDATORY PENALTY
•Disqualification to any public office in the
future/Mandatory? OPTIONAL (IN
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE) STILL
NOT DETERMINED IN OUR
JURISDICTION- NOT MANDATORY
In re Raul Gonzales
An impeachable officer cannot be:
•Disbarred if his being a lawyer is a
qualification for the position he holds
•Criminally charged for an offense which
carries a penalty of removal from office, or
service of which amounts to a removal.
RATIONALE: THE POSITION THESE OFFICERS (IMPEACHABLE) ARE
PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THEIR REMOVAL ONLY
THROUGH IMPEACHMENT SO THAT THEY CAN PERFORM THEIR
FUNCIONS INDEPENDENTLY..
THE CORRECT PROCEDURE: FILE AN IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT AND
A is Justice of the Supreme. During
his incumbency, he can be:
a. disbarred from the practice of
law
b. charged criminally for estafa
c. sued civilly for breach of
contract
An impeachable officer cannot be removed
except by impeachment-
Marcoleta v. Borra (2009) – Disbarment
COMELEC COMMISSIONER CANNOT BE DISBARRED BECAUSE HE IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFICIAL
Re: Undated Letter (2009) – Ex parte
investigation by Supreme Court
INVESTIGATION OF JUSTICE TORRES FOR DECISION LEAKAGE: HELD: SC proceeded the investigation against
him considering he is already retired!
After retirement?
Consequence of Gonzales Decision:
Crim Case. Civil Case
Disbarment
•Pres x x
x
The president enjoys total immunity from suit except impeachment and election contest
2. V-P x /
/
He can be disbarred because his being a lawyer has nothing to do with his function as VP
3. SC Justice x /
1988, No. 14: (1) What is impeachment-
procedure of removing high ranking officials from THE GOVERNMENT.
it is a
what are the grounds therefore and who are
officials removable by impeachment?
•Culpable violation of the Constitution
•Treason
•Bribery
•Graft and corruption
•Other high crimes
•Betrayal of public trust –
•President 1
•Vice-President 1
•Members of the Supreme Court 15
•Members of the 3 Constitutional Commissions ( IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CHR) 13 TOTAL IS 31
•Ombudsman
(2) Can Congress. By law, add to the list of
impeachable officers? No!
1999, 15: What are the grounds for
1998, No. 9: Suppose a Commissioner of the COMELEC is charged before the
Sandiganbayn for allegedly tolerating violation of the election laws against
proliferation of prohibited billboards and election propaganda with the end in view
of removing him from office. Will the action prosper? NO! an impeachable officer cannot be
removed from office except by IMPEACHMENT!
2003, No. 2: A group of losing litigants in a case decided by the Supreme Court
filed a complaint before the OMB charging the justices with knowingly and
deliberately rendering an unjust decision in utter violation of the penal laws of the
land. Can the OMB validly take cognizance of the case. Explain. NO! an impeachable
officer cannot be removed from office except by IMPEACHMENT! IN FACT THE OMB CANNOT INVESTIGATE A
SIMPLE JUDGE ON MATTERS RELTATED TO HIS FUNCTION!
Bar Exam 2011
[Link] an incumbent Justice of the
Supreme Court be disbarred as a
lawyer?
A. No, it will amount to removal.
B. No, his membership in the bar is
secure.
C. Yes, by the Supreme Court itself.