Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Ibra
IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS
GROUNDS
PROCEDURE
JUDGEMENT
Public officers and employees must at all times be
Accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
Responsibility, Integrity, Loyalty and Efficiency, act
with Patriotism and Justice, and lead Modest Lives.
Vice President
Ombudsman
Culpable Violation of the Constitution
Treason
Bribery
The House of
Representatives initiates
all cases of Impeachment.
Sec. 3 (1) The House of Representative shall
have the Exclusive power to initiate all cases
of Impeachment.
Any Citizen with an
Endorsement of any
Any Member of the member of the
House of House of
Representatives Representatives
Impeachment
Complaint
After hearing, and
by a majority vote of
all its Members,
A verified complaint shall submit its
must be filed by Referral to the report to the House
either a Member of Proper Committee within sixty
the House of within three session session days from
Representatives or days thereafter such referral,
by any citizen. together with the
corresponding
resolution.
A vote of at least
one-third 1/3 of
The resolution
all the Members
shall be It will constitute as
shall be necessary
calendared for the Articles of
to affirm or
consideration by Impeachment,
override its
the House within and trial by the
contrary
ten session days Senate shall
resolution. The
from receipt forthwith proceed.
vote of each
thereof.
Member shall be
recorded.
FACTS:
On July 22, 2002, the HR adopted a Resolution which directed the
Committee on Justice “to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation,
on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). Then,
former Pres. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Cj
Hilario Davide Jr. and 7 Associate Justices.
The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the
first impeachment complaint was “sufficient in form, but voted to
dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in
substance. On October 23, 2003, a second impeachment complaint was
filed against Cj Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of
the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution.
This second impeachment complaint was accompanied by a
“Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by at least one-
third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of Representatives.
ISSUE/S:
Can the Court make a determination of what
constitutes an impeachable offense?
Yes. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing
of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee
on Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3
(5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has
been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed
against the same official within a one year period following Article XI,
Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
FACTS:
On 22 July 2010, Baraquel, et al. filed an impeachment
complaint against Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N.
Gutierrez based on betrayal of public trust and
culpable violation of the Constitution.
,A Second Complaint was filed by Reyes against the
same respondent also based on the same grounds.
the two complaints were referred by the House Plenary
to the Committee on Justice at the same time and
found that the two complaints were sufficient in form
and substance.
Petitioner filed for certiorari
ISSUE/S:
Whether or Not an impeachment complaint need
to allege only one impeachable offense.
Whether or Not the Petitioner was denied of due
process because of the delay of publication of the
Impeachment Rules
HELD:
An impeachment complaint need not allege only
one impeachable offense. Multiple complaints may
be considered so long as they would all be
simultaneously referred/endorsed to the proper
committee of the HR, and would lead to only ONE
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.
Since the ConCom did not restrict “promulgation” to
“publication”. The Former should be understood to
have been used in its General sense. Its within the
discretion of the Congress to determine how to
promulgate its Impeachment Rules.
The full Senate will act as the
Jurors (Senator-Judges) who
shall be on Oath or Affirmation.
Conviction
or
Acquittal
2/3 or 16 votes are 1/3 or 8 votes can
required to convict prevent conviction on
on any articles of any articles of
impeachment impeachment.
Shall be
Disqualified
Removed liable and
to hold any
from Office subject to
Office
prosecution
Facts:
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for immediate issuance of
temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction filed by the former Chief
Justice of this Court, Renato C. Corona, assailing the impeachment case initiated by the respondent
Members of the House of Representatives (HOR) and trial being conducted by respondent Senate of
the Philippines. The present petition was filed arguing that the Impeachment Court committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it: (1) proceeded to trial on the
basis of the complaint filed by respondent Representatives which complaint is constitutionally infirm
and defective for lack of probable cause; (2) did not strike out the charges discussed in Art. II of the
complaint which, aside from being a ―hodge-podge of multiple charges, do not constitute
allegations in law, much less ultimate facts, being all premised on suspicion and/or hearsay; assuming
arguendo that the retention of Par. 2.3 is correct, the ruling of the Impeachment Court to retain Par.
2.3 effectively allows the introduction of evidence under Par. 2.3, as vehicle to prove Par. 2.4 and
therefore its earlier resolution was nothing more than a hollow relief, bringing no real protection to
petitioner; (3) allowed the presentation of evidence on charges of alleged corruption and unexplained
wealth which violates petitioner‘s right to due process because first, Art. II does not mention ―graft
and corruption‖ or unlawfully acquired wealth as grounds for impeachment, and second, it is clear
under Sec. 2, Art. XI of the Constitution that ―graft and corruption‖ is a separate and distinct ground
from ―culpable violation of the Constitution‖ and ―betrayal of public trust‖; and (4) issued the
subpoena for the production of petitioner‘s alleged bank accounts as requested by the prosecution
despite the same being the result of an illegal act (―fruit of the poisonous tree‖) considering that
those documents submitted by the prosecution violates the absolute confidentiality of such accounts
under Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposits Act) which is also penalized under Sec. 10
thereof.
Issue:
Had the constitutional issues raised in this case been
mooted out?
Held:
The impeachment trial had been concluded with the conviction of
petitioner by more than the required majority vote of the Senator-
Judges. Petitioner immediately accepted the verdict and without any
protest vacated his office. In fact, the Judicial and Bar Council is
already in the process of screening applicants and nominees, and the
President of the Philippines is expected to appoint a new Chief Justice
within the prescribed 90-day period from among those candidates
shortlisted by the JBC. Unarguably, the constitutional issue raised by
petitioner had been mooted by supervening events and his own acts.
An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to
present a justiciable controversy so that a determination thereof would
be without practical use and value. In such cases, there is no actual
substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled to and
which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.
Ian Russell E. Ibra