Constitutional Basis and Annotations

Constitutional Provisions
ARTICLE XI - ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section 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.
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.
5. No impeachment proceedings shall be 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.

Definition and Nature

Impeachment is a process of national inquest into the conduct of public officials and the bringing of charges against them for misconduct in office.
While the process of impeachment has the elements of a criminal process, it is basically a political process designed to deal with the misconduct by high public officers.
The political aspect of this process stems from the fact that the participants (ie. senator judges, prosecutors) are not ordinary citizens acting as judges but rather are
elected officials who serve by virtue of their positions and not because they have been selected by the courts to serve in judgment.

Impeachable Office
Article X, Section 2. "The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman..."
The list of impeachable officers are exclusive and may neither be increased nor reduced by the legislature. All other public officers and employees may be removed
from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

Grounds for Impeachment

Article XI, Section 2. "...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."
1. Culpable violation of the Constitution
It is the deliberate and wrongful breach of the Constitution. Violation of the Constitution made unintentionally, in good faith, and mere mistakes in the proper
construction of the Constitution do not constitute and impeachable offense.
2. Treason
It is committed by any person who, owing allegiance to the Government of the Philippines, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere. (Art. 114, Revised Penal Code)
3. Bribery
Bribery as an impeachable offense may either be Direct Bribery or Indirect Bribery.
Direct bribery - It is committed by any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official
duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another.
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do. (Art. 210,
Revised Penal Code)
Indirect bribery. -It is committed by a public officer when he accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (Art. 211, Revised Penal Code)
4. Graft and Corruption
This must be understood in the light of the provisions of the Republic Act No. 3019, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.. Any violation of the prohibited acts
provided therein constitutes a ground for impeachment.
 5. Other high crimes or Betrayal of Public Trust
The exact meaning of "other high crimes or betrayal of public trust" as an impeachable offense is still undefined. The framers of the Constitution put
impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch and transformed it from a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Hence, the definition of
an impeachable offense depends on the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be a given moment in history.
In impeachment investigation against President Quirino, the special committee of the House of Representatives referred "other high crimes" as to those crimes
which, like treason and bribery, are of so serious and enormous a nature as to affect the very life or orderly workings of the government.
Betrayal of Public Trust, on the other hand, is a new ground for impeachment, which covers "any violation of the oath of office involving loss of popular support
even if the violation may not amount to a punishable offense." (De Leon, Philippine Constitutional Law, 1999, Rex Printing Company, Inc., p.757)

Procedure
The Constitution sets forth the general principles governing the procedural aspects of impeachment. It also grants the Congress to promulgate its rules on
impeachment.
The House of Representatives have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
An impeachment is instituted by written accusations called Articles of Impeachment, which state the offenses charged. 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.
Impeachment proceedings can begin with an inquiry of impeachment resolution or with a direct resolution.
In an inquiry of impeachment resolution, after the filing of the verified complaint, the same shall be included in the Order of Business of the House of
Representatives within ten session days, and referred to the Judiciary Committee within three session days thereafter.
The House Judiciary Committee then holds hearings and investigates the charges.
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.
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.
In a direct resolution, 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.
The Articles of Impeachment is then sent to the Senate for trial, which have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. A fixed number of
members of House of Representatives shall act as prosecutors and the full Senate will act as the jurors who 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.
The Senate then votes in open session on each Article of Impeachment. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of
the Senate.
Rules of House of Representatives Justice Committee
Rules on Impeachment of House of Representatives
Rules on Impeachment Trial of the Senate

History
Constitutional
Impeachment has its origin in the English common law, found its way in the U.S. Constitution of 1787, and was adopted by the 1935 Philippine
Commonwealth Constitution.
1935 Constitutional Provisions
ARTICLE IX - IMPEACHMENT
Section 1. The President, the Vice-President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Auditor General, shall be
removed from office on impeachment for any conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, or other
high crimes.
Section 2. The House of Representatives by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, shall have the sole power of
impeachment.
Section 3. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all 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. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate.
Section 4. 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.
1973 Constitutional Provisions
ARTICLE IX - IMPEACHMENT
Section 1. The President, the Vice-President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Auditor General, shall be
removed from office on impeachment for any conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, or other
high crimes.
 Section 2. The House of Representatives by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, shall have the sole power of
impeachment.
Section 3. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all 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. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate.
Section 4. 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.

Actual Use
Although President Joseph Estrada is the first Philippine President that was impeached, there had already been three instances of
attempt to impeach previous presidents.
In 1949, there was attempt to impeach Elpidio Quirino on the ground of culpable violations of the Constitution. The move was voted
down in the House of Representative because of partisanship where the House was dominated by the same political party as that of
President Quirino.
This was followed by impeachment attempts in 1963 against Diosdado Macapagal and in 1986 against Ferdinand Marcos. Like in the
case of President Quirino, politics and partisanship caused the failure of the mopve to impeach to reach the required number of votes in
the legislature.

Newspapers and Magazine Opinions and Articles

IMPEACHMENT 101
By Jerry Barican
9 November 2000, INQUIRER
Now that more than a third of the House of Representatives have signed the Articles of Impeachment, how and when will it go to the Senate?
The Constitution says that 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 proceed forthwith.
In brief, the Rules of the House notwithstanding, the Constitution permits a third or more of its membership to file the verified resolution directly before the Senate.
There are, however, some important technicalities. What constitutes "all the members of the House"? Is it all the representative districts plus the number of party-list seats
required to fulfill the constitutional requirement of "20 percent of the total number of representatives," whether filled or not? Or is it to be based on the existing districts plus
the existing party-list seats?
The former is a higher number than the 73 required by the latter formula. To be safe and beyond challenge, the opposition may prefer to submit more signatures than both
minimum requirements.
The House also has one important task remaining. It needs to elect the House managers who will act as the prosecutors of the case before the Senate.
When is also significant. If the articles are filed immediately, the Senate is convened into a High Court of Impeachment, and the Senate jueteng hearings must stop in
deference to the higher constitutional obligations. My guess is that some in the opposition will prefer to delay the filing until at least after Edward Serapio, the alleged recipient
of Yolanda Ricaforte's jueteng funds, has testified. But the political pressure to file may be more powerful than logic.
2. What rules does the Senate follow?
Its own rules, or such rules as it may borrow. To speed matters up, it may decide to adopt either the Rules of Court or the impeachment rules of the US Senate, with a few
amendments.
If it adopts the US format, each senator is sworn in as a juror. The Chief Justice presides and makes all legal rulings. The senators, like all jurors, hear the arguments but do
not actively participate. They, however, may submit questions to the Chief Justice to answer or to put to the witnesses.
The managers of the House present their charges while the lawyers for the President argue his case in turn, as in any court trial.
In this function, the Senate does not act as a legislative body, but as a judicial one. It therefore can directly subpoena witnesses and documents, including bank records
covered by the bank secrecy law. It may choose to adjourn from time to time to reconvene to perform its legislative functions. Or it may not.
3. What standard does the Senate need to follow in order to convict?
The Constitution cites as reasons for impeachment and removal from office the following: "culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust."
Note that the constitutional violation needs to be culpable. Also, all these, except betrayal of public trust, are characterized as "high crimes," an important point in determining
the standard of proof required.
Ultimately, the Senate through its rules, the Chief Justice through his rulings, and the conscience of each senator will determine the real degree of proof. However, this is not
a mere administrative tribunal but a high court of impeachment ("high crimes," as the Constitution refers to the charges).
Moreover, one does not easily set aside the electoral mandate, especially that of a president. It may be argued that a higher standard of proof than mere preponderance of
evidence is required. Perhaps "beyond reasonable doubt," as criminal law requires, or at the least, "clear and convincing," a legal test midway between the former two such
tests.
4. How long can it take?
If due process is to be followed, longer than most people think. The failed impeachment trial of US President Andrew Johnson before the Senate in 1867 took three full
months of non-stop trial involving 11 articles of impeachment. The list of charges against the President runs, we are told, to some 17 charges. And the election campaign for
half the Senate seats begins in February, the election in May, and the Congress' term expires at the end of June. Of course, ultimately, impeachment is a political trial
masquerading as a judicial one. Its speed will be determined by politics more than law.
5. Can the trial continue after the 2001 election?
Probably. The Senate, unlike the House, is a continuing body. However, it may be difficult to defend the replacement of many "jurors"--perhaps half--midway or later through
the trial. But this issue is for the Senate itself to resolve.
6. How many senators are needed to convict?
Heretofore, the well-established rule was that "two-thirds of all the members of the Senate" was to be computed on the number of seats, vacant or not. In short, 16. However,
during the Visiting Forces Agreement ratification, the Senate adopted a rule interpreting the phrase "all the members of the Senate" to exclude vacancies. But even the
Senate by itself can't amend the constitutional provision.
There is consequently some ambiguity on this issue because two-thirds of 22 sitting senators numbers less than 15. This ambiguity favors the President who can dispute a
removal by less than 16 senators as constitutionally inadequate and legally characterize the result as an acquittal.
Anything less than 16 votes risks having two persons claiming the presidency and something close to splitting the nation in half. There are therefore strong constitutional and
pragmatic cases for needing 16 votes to convict.
7. What happens if the President is convicted by the Senate?
The President is removed from office, disqualified to hold any office under the Republic, and remains subject to prosecution according to law. The Vice President becomes
President. The new President appoints a Vice President from among the members of the Senate or House to serve the unexpired term of the Vice President (i.e., until 2004),
subject to confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress

OBSTACLES TO IMPEACHMENT
By Isagani A. Cruz
28 October 2000
LET'S have no illusions about impeachment. As a method of removing the President, it has more bark than bite. Described by Edward S. Corwin as ''the most formidable
weapon in the arsenal of democracy,'' it is dismissed by Clinton Rossiter, another acknowledged authority on the American presidency, as ''a rusted blunderbuss'' occasionally
brandished but hardly ever fired.
They're talking of American democracy, though, not the Philippine brand. In the United States, President Andrew Johnson was impeached and escaped conviction by one
vote cast by a senator who resisted partisan pressure and heeded only his conscience. President Bill Clinton was also impeached but the members of Congress crossed
party lines to support or denounce him. President Richard Nixon did not have to wait to be impeached and bite the bullet. Realizing that there were enough Democrat and
Republican legislators to oust him from office, he resigned.
In this country, it is doubtful if the impeachment of President Estrada can at least get off the ground, given the dubious motivations of our own kind of Congress. At the very
start of the Lower House investigation, Chavit Singson was prevented from submitting his evidence of Erap's involvement in the jueteng expos. The motion to gag him, filed
by an obscure congressman, was supported by colleagues alleged to have been assured, before or after the aborted hearing, of goodies from Malacaang.
The vote of one-third of the 219 members of the House of Representatives is needed to affirm a favorable recommendation of the committee on justice or to override its
contrary decision. This means that the 46(?) members who have signed the impeachment resolution need 27 more signatories to complete the required vote of 73. On the
optimistic assumption that at least 10 more sympathizers will eventually join them, there will still be a deficit of 17 votes that will not be easy to fill.
The President's determination to kill the impeachment movement will make it difficult for its proponents to persuade their colleagues to reject the powerful blandishments of
the administration. It is, after all, actually fighting for its life. Notably, there were no obvious similar efforts in the White House when Clinton--and for that matter even Nixon--
was under fir. But this is not Washington, D.C., where certain proprieties are observed. This is Metro Manila, where anything goes in political skullduggery.
Things are not any brighter in the Senate, which used to be the bastion of legislative independence. Now it is seen as another satellite of Malacaang, with no more gumption
than the House below. The charade in the blue ribbon committee hearings is a forerunner of the President's trial in the unlikely event that the impeachment materializes and
the Senate is called to sit in judgment. From the one-sided conduct of the current hearings, one can say that President Estrada's acquittal is a foregone conclusion.
The leanings of the Senate are all too obvious. When Singson was testifying, the blue ribbon committee was like a Court of the Inquisition. The senators interrogated him not
so much to elicit information on his expos as to discredit his testimony. He was from the very beginning considered a hostile witness and treated accordingly. By contrast,
the witnesses for Mr. Estrada, namely, his wife Loi and his two sons, Jinggoy and Jude, were handled tenderly if not obsequiously. The senators exchanged barbs with
Singson but only pleasantries with the President's family.
To take just one example, the interrogators seemed too eager to believe Jude's explanation that he was on a medical mission when he flew to Mindanao--on the presidential
plane no less and with his barkada to boot--and watched his inamorata perform at a floor show. The senators who nit-picked Singson did not want to know more about Jude's
expedition. The audience was expecting them to pin the witness down, but that didn't happen.
Intellectual integrity is hardly a virtue of the present Senate. Practically all the members are motivated by some selfish interest, political or otherwise, that is likely to be the
criterion when they cast their vote on the innocence or guilt of the respondent. The character of the evidence is only secondary and will not matter in the end. What will matter
is the character of the senators themselves.
One of Mr. Estrada's open supporters, who opposed the Senate investigation at the outset, is known to be seeking appointment as Philippine ambassador to the United
Nations. A lady senator's husband is the president of a construction company doing business with the government. Another senator's husband and sister are holding non-
tenure positions in which they can be replaced at the President's pleasure. A third senator's mother is in the foreign service and can also be recalled at will. One senator is
rumored to be aspiring for the Senate presidency. A number of reelectionist senators are careful not to be excluded from the administration's official ticket. Others dare not
offend the President for fear of his vindictiveness, and still others are simply hoping to be rewarded for simple mindless loyalty.
The few who will not be swayed by self-interest are pitifully few and cannot make up the two-thirds vote needed to convict the respondent. They will probably be among those
who voted against the Visiting Forces Agreement, possibly to be joined by some stalwarts like Sen. Ramon Magsaysay Jr. who forfeited his assured slot in the LAMP ticket
and resigned from that party because of his disgust over the conduct of the Senate investigation. But even as the opposition hopes that its members will stand firm, it must
also be prepared against defections to the President's more comfortable camp with all its promised gratitude.
The Constitution provides that where the President of the Philippines is impeached, the Chief Justice shall preside at the trial. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. is a fair-
minded judge, but it is doubtful if he can stem the tide of prejudice that will prevent a dispassionate assessment of the basic issue before the Senate. That issue is not what
rewards await its members. That issue is whether, on the basis of the evidence against him, the President is fit to remain in his high office until the end of his term in 2004 or
deserves to be booted out immediately for his unforgivable offenses.