Ian Russell E.

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.

 Stems from the fact that Public Officials are Public

servants. It is a responsibility and not a right.
RA 6713
 Includes Elective and Appointive Officials and
Employees,

 Permanent or Temporary, whether in the Career or

Non-career service, Including Military and

 Police personnel, whether or not they receive

Compensation, Regardless of amount.
 A Public Office is the right, authority and duty
created and conferred by law, by which for a given
period, either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the appointing power, an individual is
invested with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the government, to be exercised by
him for the benefit of the public.
Ian Russell E. Ibra
 Defined as a Method of National Inquest into the
conduct of Public Men.
 It is a constitutional process of removing public
servants from office as an assurance against abusive
officials in the country.
 It serves as Protection for the state and not to
accomplish criminal punishment.
 OBJECTIVE: solely to determine whether or not
the official is still worthy of the trust conferred
upon him/her.
President

Vice President

Members of The Supreme Court

Members of the Commission on Civil Service

Members of the Commission on Election

Members of the Commission on Audit

Ombudsman
Culpable Violation of the Constitution

Treason

Bribery

Other High Crimes

Graft and Corruption

Betrayal of Public Trust

Culpable violation
of the Treason Bribery
Constitution
• It is the deliberate • It is committed by • It is committed by
and wrongful any person who, any Public Officer,
breach of the owing allegiance who shall agree to
Constitution. to the perform an act in
Government of consideration of
the Philippines, any offer, promise,
levies war against gift or present
it or adheres to it’s received by him
enemies, giving personally or thru
them aid or the mediation of
comfort. another.
 Graft and Other high Betrayal of
Corruption crimes Public Trust
• A Public • as to those • is a new
official found crimes which, ground for
to have like treason impeachment,
acquired, and bribery, which covers
whether in his are of so "any violation
name or in the serious and of the oath of
name of other enormous a office
persons, an nature as to involving loss
amount of affect the very of popular
property life or orderly support even if
and/or money workings of the violation
manifestly out the may not
of proportion government. amount to a
to his salary. punishable
(RA 3019) offense."
Accused Office Result
Joseph E. Estrada President of the Trial Aborted, Due to
Philippines Edsa Revolution. declared
as resigned on January 20,
2001.
Merceditas Gutierrez Office of the Resigned on April 29, 2011
Ombudsman prior to the Senate's
convening as an
Impeachment Court.
Renato Corona Chief Justice of the Convicted by the
Supreme Court Impeachment Court.
Removed and
Disqualified on May 29,
2012
Senate Tries and Decides
on all the Cases.

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?

 Whether or not Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the

Rules on Impeachment adopted by the 12th Congress
are unconstitutional

 Whether or not the second impeachment complaint is

barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the
Constitution
 HELD:
 No. Such a determination is a purely political question which the
Constitution has left to the sound discretion of the legislation.

 Yes. The provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House

Impeachment Rules contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI as they give
the term “initiate” a meaning different from “filing.”

 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.

A fixed number of members of

the House of Representatives
shall act as Prosecutors
 The Senate has the sole power of sole power to try and
decide all cases of impeachment.

 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.
Ian Russell E. Ibra
 Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend
further than to removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the Government of the
Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless
be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and
punishment, according to law.
 The Standard of
Proof Required is
not Beyond
Reasonable
Doubt.
The Impeachment
Senators are
Court is not a
expected to vote
Court of Law. It is
according to their
a Political Process,
conscience.
not a Criminal.

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