Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of Indorsement from Hon. Raul Gonzalez, A.M. No. 88-4-
impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members 5433)
of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of
Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith An impeachable officer who is a member of the Philippine
proceed. bar cannot be disbarred first without being impeached.
(Jarque v. Desierto, 250 SCRA 11)688
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against
the same official more than once within a period of one year.
C. Grounds
1. Culpable Violation of the Constitution
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide 2. Treason, Bribery and Graft and Corruption
all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the 3. Other High Crimes or
Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the 4. Betrayal of Public Trust
President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of Note: The enumeration is exclusive.
the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No
person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two- Culpable Violation of the Constitution
thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
Culpable violation of the Constitution is wrongful,
intentional or willful disregard or flouting of the
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend fundamental law. Obviously, the act must be
further than removal from office and disqualification to hold deliberate and motivated by bad faith to constitute
any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the
a ground for impeachment. Mere mistakes in the
party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.
proper construction of the Constitution, on which
students of law may sincerely differ, cannot be
considered a valid ground for impeachment.689
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on
impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this
section.
Treason
Treason is committed by any person who, owing
allegiance to the Government of the Philippines,
A. Definition of Impeachment levies war against it or adheres to its enemies,
giving them aid and comfort. (RPC, Article 114)
A national inquest into the conduct of public men.686
Bribery
B. Purpose of Impeachment Bribery is committed by any public officer who shall
agree to perform an ac, whether or not constituting
crime, or refrain from doing an act which he is
The purpose of impeachment is not to punish but
officially required to do in connection with the
only to remove an officer who does not deserve to
performance of his official duties, in consideration
hold office.687
for any offer, promise, gift or present received by
him personally or through the mediation of another,
C. Impeachable Officers
or who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason
1. President of his office. 9RPC, Arts. 210-211)
2. Vice-President
3. Chief Justice and Associate Justice of the Other High Crimes
Supreme Court According to the special committee of the House of
4. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Representatives that investigated the impeachment
Commissions charges against President Quirino, are supposed
5. Ombudsman to refer to those offenses which, like treason and
bribery, are of so serious and enormous a nature
Note: The list of officers subject to impeachment in as to strike at the very life or the orderly workings
Section 2 as worded is exclusive. of the government. This rather ambiguous
definition, assuming it is correct, would probably
Members of the Supreme Court exclude such offenses as rape and murder which,
The Supreme Court said that the Special Prosecutor
although as serious as treason and bribery, will not
cannot conduct an investigation into alleged misconduct
of a Supreme Court justice, with the end view of filing a necessarily strike at the orderly workings, let alone
criminal information against him with the Sandiganbayan. life of the government.690
A Supreme Court Justice cannot be charged in a criminal
case or a disbarment proceeding, because the ultimate Graft and Corruption
effect of either is to remove him from office, and thus
circumvent the provision on removal by impeachment
thus violating his security of tenure (In Re: First 688
Antonio Nachura, Outline on Political Law, 345 (2006)
686 689
Antonio Nachura, Outline on Political Law, 345 (2006) Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p.335
687 690
Bernas Primer at 442 (2006 ed.) Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p.335
Graft and corruption is to be understood in the light conviction must be concurred in by at least two-
of the prohibited acts enumerated in the Anti-Grant thirds of all the members of the Senate.
and Corrupt Practices Act, which was in force at
the time of the adoption of the Constitution.691 4. Penalty
The penalty which may be imposed shall not
Betrayal of Public Trust extend further than removal from office and
The 1987 Constitution has added betrayal of disqualification to hold any office under the
public trust, which means any form of violation of Republic.694
the oath of office even if such violation may not be
criminally punishable offense.692 This penalty is beyond the reach of the Presidents
This is a catch-all to cover all manner of offenses power of executive clemency, but does not place
unbecoming a public functionary but not the officer beyond liability to criminal prosecution.
punishable by the criminal statutes, like (When criminally prosecuted, therefore, for the
inexcusable negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse offense which warranted his conviction on
of authority, breach of official duty by malfeasance impeachment, the officer cannot plead the defense
or misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, obstruction of of double jeopardy.)695
justice.693
5. Effect of Conviction
Removal from office and disqualification to hold
D. Procedure any office under the Republic of the Philippines.
But the party convicted shall be liable and subject
Congress shall promulgate its rules on to prosecution, trial and punishment according to
impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose. law.
(Section 3(8))
6. Judicial Review
1. Initiation
The proceeding is initiated or begins, when a
verified complaint (with accompanying III. Sandiganbayan
resolution or indorsement) is filed and referred
to the Committee on Justice for action. This is
the initiating step which triggers the series of steps Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the
that follow. (Fransisco v. House Speaker, 2003) Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its
jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.
2. Limitation on initiating of impeachment case
The Constitution prohibits the initiation of more A. Composition of Sandiganbayan
than one impeachment proceeding within one
year. Under PD 1606, it is composed of a Presiding
In Fransico v. House of Representatives, the SC
said that considering that the first impeachment
Justice and Eight Associate Justices, with the rank
complaint was filed by former President Estrada of Justice of the Court of Appeals. It sits in three [3]
against Chief Justice Davide along with seven divisions of three members of each.
associate justices on June 02, 2003 and referred to
the House Committee on Justice on August 05, B. Nature of Sandiganbayan
2003, the second impeachment complaint filed by
some Rep. Teodoro et. al., against the Chief Justice
on October 23, 2003, violates the constitutional Sandiganbayan is NOT a constitutional court. It is
prohibition against the initiation of impeachment a statutory court; that is, it is created not only by
proceedings against the same impeachable officer the Constitution but by statute, although its creation
within a one-year period. is mandated by the Constitution.696
691
Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p.336 694
Bernas Primer at 442 (2006 ed.)
692
Bernas Primer at 442 (2006 ed.) 695
Bernas Primer at 442 (2006 ed.)
693 696
Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p.336 Bernas Primer at 443 (2006 ed.)
positions in the government, whether in a Private persons may be charged together with
permanent, acting or interim capacity at the public officers to avoid repeated and unnecessary
time of the commission of the offense: presentation of witnesses and exhibits against
a. Officials of the Executive branch with the conspirators in different venues, especially of the
position of Regional Director or higher, or issues involved are the same. It follows therefore
with Salary Grade Level 27 (G27) that if a private person may be tried jointly with
according to RA 6758. public officers, he may also be convicted jointly
b. Members of Congress and officials thereof with them, as in the case of the present
with G27 an up; petitioners. (Balmadrid v. The Honorable
c. Members of the Judiciary without Sandiganbayan, 1991)
prejudice to the Constitution;
d. Chairmen and members of the Macalino v. Sandiganbaya, 2002: It was held that
Constitutional Commissions without because the Philippine National Construction
prejudice to the Constitutions; and Company (PNCC0 has no illegal charter, petitioner,
e. All other national and local officials with an officer of PNCC, is not a public officer. That
G27 or higher. being so, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction
over him. The only instance when the
Other offenses or felonies whether simple or Sandiganbayan may exercise jurisdiction over a
complexed with other crimes committed by the private individual is when the complaint charges
public officials and employees mentioned in him either as a co-principal, accomplice or
Subsection a in relation to their office; accessory of a public officer who has been charged
Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
in connection with EO nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A
issued in 1986. Determination of Jurisdiction. Whether or not the
Sandiganbayan or the RTC has jurisdiction over
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over petitions for the case shall be determined by the allegations in
the issuance of the writs of mandamus, the information specifically on whether or not the
prohibitions, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction acts complained of were committed in relation to
and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its the official functions of the accused. It is required
appellate jurisdiction; Provided, that jurisdiction that the charge be set forth with particularity as will
over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the reasonably indicate that the exact offense which
Supreme Court; the accused is alleged to have committed is one in
relation to his office. Thus, the mere allegation in
Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction over final the information that the offense was committed by
judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial the accused public officer in relation to his office
courts whether in the exercise of their own original is a conclusion of law, not a factual averment that
jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction. (RA would show the close intimacy between the offense
8249) charged and the discharge of the accuseds official
duties. (Lacson v. Executive Secretary)
The following requisites must concur in order that a
case may fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Binay v. Sandiganbayan, 1999: The Supreme
Sandiganbayan: Court discussed the ramifications of Section 7, RA
8249, as follows:
1. The offense committed is a violation of RA 1. If trial of the cases pending before whatever
1379, Chapter II, Section , Title VII, Book II of court has already begun as of the approval of
the Revised Penal Code, Executive Orders RA 8249, the law does not apply;
Nos. 1, 2 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986, or other 2. If trial of cases pending before whatever court
offenses or felonies whether simple or has not begun as of the approval of RA 8249,
complexed with other crimes; then the law applies, and the rules are:
2. The offender committing the offenses (violating i. If the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
RA 3019, RA 1379, the RPC provisions, and over a case pending before it, then it
other offenses, is a public official or employee retains jurisdiction;
holding any of the positions enumerated in par. ii. If the Sandiganbayan has no
A, Section 4, RA 8249; and jurisdiction over a cased pending
3. The offense committed is in relation to the before it, the case shall be referred to
office. (Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 1999) the regular courts;
iii. If the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
Private individuals. In case private individuals over a case pending before a regular
are charged as co-principals, accomplices or court, the latter loses jurisdiction and
accessories with the public officers or employees, the same shall be referred to the
they shall be tried jointly with said public officers Sandiganbayan;
and employees. (Section 4, PD 1606)
iv. If a regular court has jurisdiction over nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and
a case pending before it, then said from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter.
court retains jurisdiction. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All
vacancies shall be filled within three months after they
occur.
D. Decisions/Review
principle of the separation of powers. (Camanag v. There is, however, one important exception to this
Guerrero, 1997) rule, and that is, when grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the Ombudsman in either prosecuting or
Q: RA 6770 empowers the Office of the dismissing a case before it is evident. In this event,
Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigations the act of the Ombudsman can justifiably be
and to directly undertake criminal prosecutions. assailed.709
Does it not directly contravene Article XI, Section 7
by diminishing the authority and power lodged in Ombudsman has no authority to directly
the Office of the Special Prosecutor? dismiss a public officer from government
A: In Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman, 1995, the service. Under Section 13(3) of Article XI, the
Court upheld not only the power of Congress to so Ombudsman can only recommend to the officer
place the Office of the Special Prosecutor under concerned the removal of a public officer or
the Ombudsman, but also the power of Congress employee found to be administratively liable.
to remove some of the powers granted to the Office (Taplador v. Office of the Ombudsman, 2002) Be
of Special Prosecutor. . (Camanag v. Guerrero, that as it may, the refusal, without just cause, of
1997) any officer to comply with such an order of the
Ombudsman to penalize erring officer or employee
Q: Are the powers of Ombudsman delegable? is a ground for disciplinary action. Thus, there is a
A: The power to investigate or conduct a strong indication that the Ombudsmans
preliminary investigation on any Ombudsman case recommendation is not merely advisory in nature
may be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor but actually mandatory within the bounds of law.
of the Office of the Ombudsman, or by any This, should not be interpreted as usurpation of the
Provincial or City Prosecutor or their assistance, Ombudsman of the authority of the head of office
either in their regular capacities or as deputized or any officer concerned. It has long been settled
Ombudsman prosecutors. (Honasan II v. Panel of that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate
Investigators of the DOJ, 2004) and prosecute any illegal act or omission of any
public official is not an exclusive authority, but a
In any form or manner It was held that the fact shared or concurrent authority in respect of the
that the Ombudsman may start an investigation on offense charged. (Ledesma v. CA, 2005)
the basis of any anonymous letter does not violate
the equal protection clause. For purposes of F. Power to Investigate
initiating preliminary investigation before the Office
of the Ombudsman, a complaint in any form or The power to investigate, including preliminary
manner is sufficient. (Garcia v. Miro, 2003)707 investigation, belongs to the Ombudsman and not
to the Special Prosecutor. (Acop v. Ombudsman,
Power of Contempt. The Ombudsman is also 1995)
granted by law the power to cite for contempt, and
this power may be exercised by the Ombudsman Uy v. Sandiganbayan, 2001: It was held that
while conducting preliminary investigation because under Sections 11 and 15, RA 6670, the
preliminary investigation is an exercise of quasi- Ombudsman s clothed with the authority to conduct
judicial functions. (Lastimosa v. Vasquez, 243 preliminary investigation and to prosecute all
SCRA 497)708 criminal cases involving public officers and
employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of
Can the Court be compelled to review the the Sandiganbayan, but those within the
exercise of discernment in prosecuting or jurisdiction of regular courts as well. The clause
dismissing a case before the Ombudsman? It any illegal act or omission of any public official is
has been consistently held that it is not for the broad enough to embrace any crime committed by
Court to review the Ombudsmans paramount a public officer or employee.
discretion in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint
filed before his office. The rule is based not only Ombudsmans Power to Investigate, Not
upon the respect for the investigatory and Exclusive. While the Ombudsmans power to
prosecutor powers granted by the Constitution to investigate is primary, it is not exclusive and, under
the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality the Ombudsman Act of 1989, he may delegate it to
as well. (Otherwise, the functions of the courts will others and take it back any time he wants to. (Acop
be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions v. Ombudsman, 1995)
assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with The Ombudsman can also investigate criminal
regard to complaints filed before it. (Olairez v. offenses committed by public officers which have
Sandiganbayan, 2003)
707
Antonio Nachura, Outline on Political Law, 351 (2006)
708 709
Antonio Nachura, Outline on Political Law, 351 (2006) Antonio Nachura, Outline on Political Law, 353 (2006)
to him is preventive and not punitive. Section 24 of employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, except
Republic Act No. 6770 grants the Ombudsman the his deputies. This power necessarily includes the
power to impose preventive suspension up to six power of setting, prescribing and administering the
months. Preventive suspension maybe imposed standards for the officials and personnel of the
without any notice or hearing. It is merely a Office.
preliminary step in an administrative investigation To further ensure its independence, the
and is not the final determination of the guilt of the Ombudsman has been vested with the power of
officer concerned. (Garcia v. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207 administrative control and supervision of the Office.
[1999]). This includes the authority to organize such
directorates for administration and allied services
Q: For his part, the Ombudsman moved to dismiss as may be necessary for the effective discharge of
WOWs petition. According to the Ombudsman the the functions of the Office, as well as to prescribe
evidence of guilt of WOW is strong, and petitioner and approve its position structure and staffing
failed to exhaust administrative remedies. WOW pattern. Necessarily, it also includes the authority to
admitted he filed no motion for reconsideration, but determine and establish the qualifications, duties,
only because the order suspending him was functions and responsibilities of the various
immediately executory. Should the motion to dismiss directorates and allied services of the Office. This
be granted or not? Discuss briefly. (5%) must be so if the constitutional intent to establish
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The motion to dismiss an independent Office of the Ombudsman is to
should be denied. Since the suspension of Director remain meaningful and significant. The Civil
WOW was immediately executory, he would have Service Commission has no power over this.710
suffered irreparable injury had he tried to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing a petition in I. Claim of Confidentiality
court (University of the Philippines Board of Regents
v. Rasul, 200 SCRA 685 [19910Besides, the Even the claim of confidentiality will not prevent the
question involved is purely legal. (Azarcon v. Ombudsman from demanding the production of
Bunagan, 399 SCRA 365 [2003]). documents needed for the investigation.711
Bar Question (1996) In Almonte v. Vasquez, 1995, the Court said that
Ombudsman; Power to Suspend; Preventive where the claim of confidentiality does not rest on
Suspension the need to protect military, diplomatic or other
national security secrets but on general public
An administrative complaint for violation of the Anti-
interest in preserving confidentiality, the courts have
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against X was filed declined to find in the Constitution an absolute
with the Ombudsman. Immediately after taking privilege even for the President.712
cognizance of the case and the affidavits submitted
to him, the Ombudsman ordered the preventive Moreover, even in cases where matters are really
suspension of X pending preliminary investigation. confidential, inspection can be done in camera.713
X questioned the suspension order, contending
that the Ombudsman can only suspend V. Special Prosecutor
preventively subordinate employees in his own
office. Is X correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, X is not correct. As Section 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be
held in Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645. known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall
under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770, the continue to function and exercise its powers as now or
Ombudsman can place under preventive hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred
on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this
suspension any officer under his disciplinary
Constitution.
authority pending an investigation. The moment a
complaint is filed with the Ombudsman, the
respondent is under his authority. Congress
intended to empower the Ombudsman to suspend
all officers, even if they are employed in other This provision applies only to civil actions for
offices in the Government. The words recovery of ill-gotten wealth and not to criminal
"subordinate" and "in his bureau" do not appear in cases. Thus, prosecution of offenses arising from,
the grant of such power to the Ombudsman. relating, or incident to, or involving ill-gotten wealth
in the said provision may be barred by prescription.
H. Power of Ombudsman Over His Office
710
Under the Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman v. CSC, G.R. No. 162215, July 30, 2007.
711
Ombudsman is an independent body. As a Bernas Primer at 446 (2006 ed.)
712
guaranty of this independence, the Ombudsman Bernas Primer at 447 (2006 ed.)
has the power to appoint all officials and 713
Bernas Primer at 447 (2006 ed.)
(Presidential Ad-hoc Fact Finding Committee on President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the
Behest Loans v. Deseirto, 1999) Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions, the
Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in which they have
controlling interest, during their tenure.
VI. Ill-gotten Wealth
Section 15. The right of the State to recover properties VIII. Transparency Rule
unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from
them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be
barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon
assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be
required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his
This provision applies only to civil actions for assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the
recovery of ill-gotten wealth and not to criminal President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet,
cases. Thus, prosecution of offenses arising from, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional
relating, or incident to, or involving ill-gotten wealth Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of
in the said provision may be barred by prescription. the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration
(Presidential Ad-hoc Fact Finding Committee on shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by
Behest Loans v. Desierto, 1999) law.