You are on page 1of 34

ARTICLE XI

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS

Ian Russell E. Ibra


IMPEACHMENT
IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS

GROUNDS

PROCEDURE

JUDGEMENT
Public Office is a Public
Trust
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.
Who are Public Officials?
RA 6713
Includes Elective and Appointive Official s 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.
What is a Public Office?
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.
IMPEACHMENT

Ian Russell E. Ibra


What is an Impeachment?
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.
Who are Subject to
Impeachment
President
Grounds for Impeachment
Culpable Violation of the Constitution
Culpable violation of the Constitution
Graft and Corruption
Impeached Officials
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,
Ombudsman 2011 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
Who Wields the Power to
Impeach?
Procedure

Sec. 3 (1) The House of


Representative shall have the
Exclusive power to initiate all cases of
Impeachment.
WHO CAN FILE AN IMPEACHMENT
COMPLAINT?
The process begins at the House of
Representatives
A verified complaint must be filed by either a
The resolution
Francisco, Jr v House of Representatives
Gr no. 160261 (Nov 10, 2003)
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.
Francisco, Jr v House of Representatives
Gr no. 160261 (Nov 10, 2003)
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
Francisco, Jr v House of Representatives
Gr no. 160261 (Nov 10, 2003)
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.
Gutierrez v House of Representatives
Gr no. 193459 (Feb 15 , 2011)
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 alsobased 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
Gutierrez v House of Representatives
Gr no. 193459 (Feb 15 , 2011)
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
Gutierrez v House of Representatives
Gr no. 193459 (Feb 15 , 2011)
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.
Impeachment Court
Trial at the Senate
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.
JUDGEMENT

Ian Russell E. Ibra


Judgement
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.
How is Conviction/Acquittal
Determined?
How many Votes are needed
to convict/acquit?
2/3 or 16 votes are required to convict on any articles of impeachment
CONSEQUENCES OF
CONVICTION
Removed from Office
Corona vs Senate
Gr No. 200242 (July 17, 2012)
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 ofjurisdiction 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 earlierresolution 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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.
Corona vs Senate
Gr No. 200242 (July 17, 2012)
Issue:
Had the constitutional issues raised in this
case been mooted out?
Corona vs Senate
Gr No. 200242 (July 17, 2012)
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 ChiefJustice
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.

Thank your for listening


Ian Russell E. Ibra

You might also like