1988 BAR What is impeachment, what are the grounds therefor, and who are the high officials

removable thereby?

Impeachment is a method by which persons holding government positions of high authority,

prestige, and dignity and with definite tenure may be removed from office for causes closely
related to their conduct as public officials, (V.G. SINCO, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW 373 (llth ed.
1962)).
The grounds for impeachment are culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust. (Art. XI, sec. 2).
The officials removable by impeachment are the President, Vice President, the Members of the
Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman. (Id.)

2011 BAR (28) Upon endorsement from the Senate where it was first mistakenly filed,
the
House of 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 impeachment suit was filed against the President who questioned
the same for being violative of the Constitution. Is the President correct?
(D) Yes, no impeachment proceeding can be filed against the President more than
once within a year.

2012 BAR
A verified impeachment complaint was filed by two hundred (200) Members of the House
of Representatives against Madam Chief Justice Blue. The complaint was immediately
transmitted to the Senate for trial.
(a) Madam Chief Justice Blue challenges such immediate transmittal to the Senate because
the verified complaint 1) not included in the order of business of the House, 2) was not
referred to the House Committee on Justice for hearing and consideration for
sufficiency in form and substance, and 3) was not submitted to the House Plenary for
consideration as enumerated in Paragraph (2), Section 3, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution. Decide with reasons.
Since he verified complaint was filed by 200 Members of the House of
Representatives and they constituted at least one third of its Members, it
need not undergo the procedure in Paragraph 2 Section 3, Article XI of the
Constitution. The verified complaint constitutes the Articles of
Impeachment, and trial by the Senate should proceed forthwith (Section
3(4), Article XI of the Constitution)
(b) What is the purpose of Impeachment? Does conviction prevent further prosecution and
punishment? Explain.
 The purpose of impeachment is not to punish but only to remove a
public officer to secure the people against gross political misdemeanors.
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, A Commentary, 2009
ed., p. 1150.) Conviction does not prevent further prosecution and
punishment. The person convicted is subject to prosecution and
punishment according to law. (Section 3(7), Article XI of the
Constitution.)

(c) Enumerate the grounds for impeachment. Is graft and corruption a ground for
impeachment? (2%)

The following are the grounds for impeachment:

1) Culpable violation of the

Constitution;
2) Treason;
3) Bribery;
4) Graft and Corruption;
5) Other high crimes; and
6) Betrayal of public trust

Which one is NOT among the Constitutionally mandated grounds for impeachmen of
impeachable officials:
d. culpable violation of the duty to be at all times accountable to the people.
Which is NOT an impeachable public officer:
c. the administrator of the Supreme Court;
Which has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment:

b. the House of Representatives;

At least one-third of all the members of the House of Representatives may file articles of
impeachment by:

b. verified complaint and resolution;

The President cannot grant pardon in cases of impeachment. He may however exercise
such power when:
a. A person convicted in an impeachment proceeding is subject to prosecution,
trial and punishment in an ordinary criminal action
At the Senate impeachment trial of Justice Pablo P. San Quintin, Hon. Emilio A. Tan,
Congressman and Impeachment Panel Manager, wrote the Supreme Court requesting that the
prosecutors be allowed to examine the court records of Stewards Association of the
Philippines, Inc. (SAP!) v. Filipinas Air, et al., G.R. No. 987654, a case that is still pending.
The High Court.
C) should deny the request since records of cases that are pending for decision
are privileged ex cept only for pleadings, orders and resolutions that are available
to the public
As a leading member of the Lapiang Mandirigma in the House of Representatives, you
were tasked by the party to initiate the moves to impeach the President because he entered
into an executive agreement with the US Ambassador for the use of the former Subic Naval
Base by the US Navy, for free, i.e., without need to pay rent nor any kind of fees as a
show of goodwill to the U.S. because of the continuing harmonious RP- US relations.

Cite at least two (2) grounds for impeachment and explain why you chose them. (6%)
The President can be impeached for culpable violation of the Constitution and
betrayal of public trust. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the
provision in Article XVIII, Section 25 of the Constitution requires a treaty even for
the mere temporary presence of foreign troops in the Philippines (Bayan vs. Zamora,
342 SCRA 499). The President cannot claim, therefore, that he acted in good faith.
(Report of the Special Committee in the Impeachment of President Quirino,
Congressional Record of the House of Representatives, Vol. IV, p. 1553). Betrayal of
public trust includes violation of the oath of the office of the President (Record of the
Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, p.272). In his oath of office, the President
swore to preserve and defend the Constitution (Article VII, Section 5 of the 1987
Constitution)

Presidential Decree No. 1606 provides that Justices of the Sandiganbayan may be removed only by
impeachment. Is this Presidential Decree still valid? Why?

PD No. 1606, sec. 1, in so far as it provides for the removal of the members
of the Sandiganbayan only by impeachment must be deemed to have been
rendered inoperative by the new Constitution which provides that with the
exception of the officials there mentioned, "All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by
impeachment." Moreover, under Art. VIII, sec,11, the power to remove lower
court judges is vested in the Supreme Court en banc which, by actually take
 part in the deliberation on the issues in the case and vote thereon, can dismiss
lower court judges.

Suppose a Commissioner of the COMELEC is charged before the Sandiganbayan 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? [5%]

No, the action will not prosper. Under Section 8, Article XI of the Constitution,
the Commissioners of the COMELEC are removable by IMPEACHMENT. As
held in the case of In re Gonzales. 160 SCRA 771, 774775, a public officer who
is removable by impeachment cannot be charged before the
Sandiganbayan with an offense which carries with it the penalty of removal
from office unless he is first impeached. Otherwise, he will be removed from
office by a method other than Impeachment.

Senator Fleur De Lis is charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan. After finding the
existence of probable cause, the court issues a warrant for the Senator's arrest. The
prosecution files a motion to suspend the Senator relying on Section 5 of the Plunder Law.
According to the prosecution, the suspension should last until the termination of the case.
Senator Lis vigorously opposes the motion contending that only the Senate can discipline its
members; and that to allow his suspension by the Court would violate the principle of
separation of powers. Is Senator Lis's contention tenable? Explain. (4%)
ANSWER: The contention of Senator Lis is untenable.
In a similar case, the Supreme Court held that the order of suspension prescribed by
Republic Act No. 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own
ranks under the Constitution. The doctrine of separation of powers by itself may not
be deemed to have effectively excluded members of Congress from Republic Act No.
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) nor from its sanctions. Hence, Republic
Act No. 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress and that,
therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed preventive
suspension order. (Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001)

The Office of the Special Prosecutor may file an information against a public
officer for graft

(C) only when authorized by the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman and his deputies are appointed by the President from a list prepared
by:
c. the Judicial and Bar Council;
A group of losing litigants in a case decided by the Supreme Court filed a complaint before
the Ombudsman charging the Justices with knowingly and deliberately rendering an unjust
decision in utter violation of the penal laws of the land. Can the Ombudsman validly take
cognizance of the case? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Ombudsman cannot entertain the complaint. As stated in the case of In re:
Laureta. 148 SCRA 382 [1987], pursuant to the principle of separation of powers, the
correctness of the decisions of the Supreme Court as final arbiter of all justiciable disputes
is conclusive upon all other departments of the government; the Ombudsman has no
power to review the decisions of the Supreme Court by entertaining a complaint against
the Justices of the Supreme Court for knowingly rendering an unjust decision.
CTD, a Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), sports a No. 10 car
plate. A disgruntled litigant filed a complaint against him for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act before the Ombudsman. CTD now seeks to enjoin the Ombudsman in a petition for
prohibition, alleging that he could be investigated only by the Supreme Court under its power of
supervision granted in the Constitution. He contends that under the law creating the NLRC, he has
the rank of a Justice of the Court of Appeals, and entitled to the corresponding privileges. Hence,
the OMB has no jurisdiction over the complaint against him. Should CTD's petition be granted or
dismissed? Reason briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The petition of CTD should be dismissed. Section 21

of the Ombudsman Act vests the Office of the Ombudsman with disciplinary
authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government, except
officials who may be removed only by impeachment, Members of Congress,
and the Judiciary. While CTD has the rank of a Justiceof the Court of Appeals,
he does not belong to the Judiciary but to the Executive Department. This
simply means that he has the same compensation and privileges as a Justice of
the Court of Appeals. If the Supreme Court were to investigate CTD, it would be
performing a non-judicial function. This will violate the principle of separation of
powers. (Noblejas v. Teehankee, 23 SCRA 405 [1968])

Pedro Masipag filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against RTC Judge Jose Palacpac with
violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in
Criminal Case No. 617. Judge Palacpac filed a motion with the Ombudsman to refer the complaint
to the Supreme Court to determine whether an administrative aspect was involved in the said case.
The Ombudsman denied the motion on the ground that no administrative case against Judge
Palacpac relative to the decision in Criminal Case No. 617
was filed and pending in his office. State with reasons whether the Ombudsman's ruling is
correct. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Ombudsman's ruling is not correct. UnderSection 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the
Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself
whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter.
The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it,
referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether an administrative aspect is involved
therein. (Judge Jose Caoibes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001)

Decisions of the Ombudsman imposing penalties in administrative disciplinary cases are merely
recommendatory.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FALSE. Under Section 15(3) of the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman has
the power to ensure compliance with the imposition of penalty on public officers it
finds at fault by virtue of its disciplinary authority (Office of the Ombudsman vs.
Madriaga, 503 SCRA 631 [2006]).
Judge Red is the Executive Judge of Green City. Red is known to have corrupt tendencies and
has a reputation widely known among practicing lawyers for accepting bribes. Ombudsman
Grey, wishing to "clean up" the government from errant public officials, initiated an investigation
on the alleged irregularities in the performance of duties of Judge Red.
(a) Judge Red refused to recognize the authority of the Office of the Ombudsman
over him because according to him, any administrative action against him or any court
official or employee falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Decide
with reasons. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Since the complaint refers to the performance of the duties of Judge Red,
Ombudsman Grey should not act on it and should refer it to the
Supreme Court. His investigation will encroach upon the exclusive power of
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court over all courts. (Maceda vs.
Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464.)

(b) Does the Ombudsman have authority to conduct investigation over crimes or offenses committed by
public officials that are NOT in connection or related at all to the officials discharge of his duties and
functions? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The Ombudsman can investigate crimes or offenses committed by public officers
which are not connected with the performance of their duties. Under Section
13(1), Article XI of the Constitution, the Ombudsman can investigate any act or
omission of a public official which is illegal. (Deloso vs. Domingo, 191 SCRA
545.)

Suppose a public officer has committed a violation of Section 3 (b) and (c) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act {RA No, 3019), as amended, by receiving monetary and other material
considerations for contracts entered into by him in behalf of the government and in connection
with other transactions, as a result of which he has amassed illegally acquired wealth.

(a) Does the criminal offense committed prescribe? (2%)

(b) Does the right of the government to recover the illegally acquired wealth prescribe? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) A violation of Section 3(b) and (c) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
prescribes. As held in Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v.
Desierto, 317SCRA 272 (1999), Article XI, Section 15 of the Constitution does not apply to
criminal cases for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(b) Article XI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides that the right of the State to recover
properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, or from them or from their
nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription.
Who are required by the Constitution to submit a declaration under oath of his assets,
liabilities, and net worth? (2%)
All public officers and employees are required to submit a declaration under oath
of their assets, liabilities and net worth. (Section 17, Article XI of the
Constitution.)

SALN means:
c. Statement of assets, liabilities and net worth;