As a result, the penalties for political offenses resulting in its rules, while the Senate adopts its rules
ts its rules for
conviction in cases of impeachment should be restricted to only
two: removal from office and/or permanent disqualification from
holding further office.
IMPEACHMENT
 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.
 The object of impeachment is solely to determine
whether or not the official is still worthy of the trust
conferred upon him/her.
 It is NOT the determination of criminal guilt or
innocence as in a criminal case.
SUBJECT FOR IMPEACHMENT
 President
 Vice President
 Justices of the SC
 Members of the Constitutional Commissions (CSC,
COMELEC, COA)
 Ombudsman
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT
 Treason
Any person who, owing allegiance to the Government
of the Philippines, not being a foreigner, levies war
against it or adheres to its enemies by giving them aid
or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere. (Article
114, Revised Penal Code)
 Bribery
Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act
constituting a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duties, in consideration of
any offer, promise, gift or present received by such
officer, personally or through the mediation of another.
(Article 210-211, Revised Penal Code)
 Other High Crimes
Offenses which, like treason and bribery, are
indictable offenses and are of such enormous gravity
that they strike at the very life or orderly working of
government (Bernas, J. The 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary. 2003 ed,
p. 1112)
 Graft and Corruption
A public official found to have acquired, whether in his
name or in the name of other persons, an amount of
property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to
his salary. (RA 3019)
 Betrayal of Public Trust
Betrayal of public interest, inexcusable negligence of
duty, tyrannical abuse of power, breach of official duty
by malfeasance or misfeasance, cronyism favoritism,
etc. to the prejudice of public interest and which tend
to bring the office into disrespute. (Record of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986, p. 272)
WHO WEILDS THE POWER TO IMPEACH?
 House of Representatives – initiates all cases of
impeachment
 Senate – tries and decides on all the cases.
WHO PRESIDES?
President – Supreme Court Chief Justice
Other – Senate president
WHO CAN FILE AN IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT?
 Any member of the House of Representatives
 Any citizen with an endorsement of any member of
the House of Representatives
WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURES FOR IMPEACHMENT?
1. Fast-Track Procedure
If an impeachment complaint or resolution is filed by
at least one-third (1/3) of all the member of the House,
the Articles of Impeachment shall be sent to Senate
for Trial (Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 4
2. Longer Procedure
Each Congress adopts its rules for impeachment for
each chamber. The House of Representatives adopts
impeachment trials.
1) Initiate impeachment through a verified complaint
filed by any member of the HOR.
2) Include in Order of business within 10 session
days
3) Referred to the proper committee within 3
session days
4) Committee conduct hearings
5) Committee Votes (Majority)
6) Refer to the plenary within 60 days
7) Plenary Votes (at least 1/3)
8) Resolution and Articles of Impeachment referred
to Senate
9) House elects its prosecutors
10) Senate as plenary body drafts its rules on
impeachment
11) Senate will vote on adoption of rules (Majority)
12) Senate convenes as impeachment court
13) Senate issues summons to respondent
14) Respondent appears and files answers
15) Senate receives testimonial and documentary
evidence
16) Senate interpose questions
17) Submission for voting
18) Convicted to Acquitted
HOW MANY VOTES ARE NEEDED TO AFFIRM OR
OVERRIDE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OF THE
COMMITTEE?
PARAGRAPH (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.
Art. XI Sec. 3 Par. 3, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
PARAGRAPH (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.
Art. XI Sec. 3 Par. 4, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
House of Representatives
The one-third vote can be achieved in two ways
1. One-third of the House can sign an impeachment
complaint, which, upon submission, is automatically
sent to the Senate without need for deliberation or
debate.
2. A complaint can be submitted to the Committee e on
Justice as with any bill, and debated and voted upon
in committee, and approved, submitted for plenary
debate and consideration. The entire House can then
vote to approve or disapprove the impeachment
complaint. If one-third of the House votes in favour, it
is then sent to the Senate as the Articles of
Impeachment.
CAN THE PROCESS BE FAST-TRACKED?
Yes. The Constitution provides that if at least one-third of all
members of the HOR files a complaint or resolution of
impeachment, the trial by the Senate will commence.
HOW IS AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL CONDUCTED?
They are conducted according to rules adopted by the Senate.
In the absence of specific rules enumerated in the Senate
Rules, the Rules of Court will be followed in order of the
presentation of evidence.
HOW IS CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL DETERMINED?
Senators are expected to vote according to their conscience.
 The standard of proof required is not “beyond
reasonable doubt,” because an impeachment is not a
criminal trial.
 The impeachment court is not a court of law. It is a
POLITICAL process, NOT criminal. The rules of court
are adopted for procedural purposes, and are
therefore supplementary in nature to the Senate
Rules on Impeachment.
HOW MANY VOTES ARE NEEDED TO CONVICT AN
OFFICIAL DURING AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL? IMPEACHMENT: THEORETICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
 A vote at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Senate for any THOUGHT
one article of impeachment is needed for conviction.
 8 negative votes can prevent conviction on any article. “A method of National Inquest into the conduct of public men”-
 16 votes are required to convict on any article Alexander Hamilton

WHAT IS THE RESULT OF CONVICTION?  The design of impeachment is to remove the

 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. (Article XI, Section 3, Par 7)
 Criminal liability must be established by a criminal
trial. If impeachment were a criminal trial, further
criminal liability could not be established because of
the principle of double jeopardy.
ARE THERE LIMITS TO THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS?
 No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once within a
period of one year. (Article XI, Section 3, Par 5)
 Any conviction in impeachment is beyond the
president’s power of executive clemency.
ARE IMPEACHMENTS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW?
 The SC has the power to review cases of
impeachment, to see if they conform to the
procedures and requirements enumerated in the
Constitution.
 What the SC does not have the power to do, it said, is
to comment on the actual charges. The charges
themselves, since an impeachment is a political trial,
are beyond judicial review. (Francisco v HOR)
impeachable officer from office, not to punish him. An
impeachment act need not be criminal.
 Abuse or violation of public trust is POLITICAL, as
they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the
society itself.
 Public opinion is expected to play a part in the
impeachment process.
 The senate is the fit depository of this trust; they deal
with political nature.
 The Supreme Court deals with the administration of
justice
HISTORICAL DATA
 1935 – impeachment was to be conducted by a
committee of the unicameral legislature – the National
Assembly
 1940 – amendments to the Constitution, impeachment
should be initiated in the HOR and tried at the Senate
 1973 – an additional offense was added; graft and
corruption, government was back to a unicameral
procedure (the Batasan Pambansa)
 1987 – reinstated the bicameral House, from previous
constitution of ¾ votes moved to 1/3; added betrayal
of Public trust to the offenses.

CHARGES FILED BY RESULTS

ELPIDIO QUIRINO
DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL
FERDINAND MARCOS
JOSEPH ESTRADA
OMB. ANIANO DESIERTO
CJ HILARIO DAVIDE
GLORIA ARROYO
Wasting and misappropriation of
public funds.
Abuse of power, violation of laws,
and immoral extravagance.
Intervention prejudicial to the
public interest in the transaction
wherein his brother Antonio was in
connivance with a Soviet citizen.
Aiding and abetting graft and
corruption.
Gross official misconduct and acts,
which deprived the government of
substantial revenue.
Allegedly illegally importing rice
for the Armed Forces and
violating the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
Graft, economic plunder,
unexplained wealth,
cronyism,
and other crimes
Graft and corruption,
betrayal of public trust,
culpable violations of the
Constitution
Bribery, culpable violations
of the Constitution, betrayal
of public trust
Graft and Corruption
Dismissed on November 19,
2003 when House Plenary
voted not to transmit the
Articles of Impeachment to
the Senate
Cheating her way to the
presidency, corruption,
political killings, and
violation of the Constitution
Juan Rodriguez on April
28, 1949
Rep. Arturo M. Tolentino on,
April
12, 1964
58 opposition lawmakers on
August 13, 1985
Opposition Bloc led by
House
Minority Leader Feliciano
Belmonte Jr. on October 19,
2000
Ernesto Francisco on
November 6, 2001
Rep. Felix Fuentebella,
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, on
October 23, 2003
Oliver Lozano,
Jose Lopez on 2005
June 26, 2006
Bienvenido Lumbera
Imelda Nicolas
Randy David
Dismissed on April 29, 1949
due to lack of factual and legal
basis
Dismissed on June 24, 1964,
in committee
Resolution rejected by the
Batasan Pambansa seven hours
later for being “insufficient in form
and substance.”
Impeached on November 13,
2000. Transmitted to the Senate
on November 14, 2000. Trial
commenced on
December 7, 2000.
Impeachment trial ended
after prosecutors walked out
on January 16, 2001
Dismissed on December 18,
2001
Dismissed on November 19,
2003 when House Plenary
voted not to transmit the
Articles of Impeachment to
the Senate
Dismissed on _August 31, 2005
for complaint being
“insu_cient in substance”
Dismissed on August 26, 2006
 Corazon Soliman
Bro. Eddie Villanueva and
around 200 citizen
complainants
Endorsed by Reps. Francis
Escudero and Ronaldo
Zamora
June 27, 2006
Teofisto Guingona, Jr.
Endorsed by Rep. Teofisto
Guingona III

June 28, 2006

Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez
Endorsed by Rep. Etta
Rosales

June 29, 2006

Atty. Abigail Binay
Endorsed by Rep. Ruy Elias
Lopez

July 24, 2006

OMB
MERCEDITASGUTIRREZ
CJ RENATO CORONA
Betrayal of public trust, culpable
violation of the
Constitution, bribery, graft
and corruption, and other
high crimes
Betrayal of public trust and
culpable violation of the
Constitution.
Betrayal of public trust, graft
and corruption, and culpable
violation of the Constitution.
Relatives of human rights
victims (14 signatories)
Roberto Rafael Pulido on Dismissed on November 14,
October 5, 2007 2007
Jose "Joey" de Venecia III, Dismissed on November 26,
Rolex Suplico, Harry Roque 2008
Endorsed by Bayan Muna
Reps. Satur Ocampo, Teddy
Casino, and Gabriela Rep.
Liza Maza in October 18,
2008
Thirty-one civil society Impeached on March 22, 2011
leaders led by former Senate
President Jovito Salonga in
2009; Akbayan and Bagong
Alyansang Makabayan in
2010
Ana Theresia Impeached on December 12,
Hontiveros-Baraquel, 2011. Articles of Impeachment
Rodolfo Lozada Jr., Juan transmitted to the Senate on
Carlo Tejano, and Lea December 13, 2011. Trial
Lopez commenced on January 16,
Navarro on December 12, 2012. Convicted on May 29,
2011 2012 by a vote of 20–3.

G.R. No. 161098 September 13, 2007

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. CELSO SANTIAGO, Respondent. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision2 dated June 18, 2003 and Resolution dated
December 8, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66744.

The facts are:

On July 27, 2000, the City of Manila, through the City Budget Office, released a calamity fund for Barangay 183, Zone 16, same city, in
the amount of ₱44,053.00. This was received by Barangay Chairman Celso Santiago, respondent herein.
On October 3, 2000, Rebecca B. Pangilinan, Mario B. Martin, Rolando H. Lopez and Alfredo M. Escaño, Sr., all barangay kagawad of
Barangay 183, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner, an administrative complaint for technical malversation, violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a public officer against respondent,
docketed as OMB-ADM-0-00-0828.
The complaint alleges that (a) respondent failed to utilize the calamity fund for the purpose for which it was allocated; (b) he leased a
portion of the barangay sidewalk to Amity Food Corporation without the conformity of the barangay kagawad; (c) Amity Food
Corporation issued checks payable to respondent, not in the name of the Barangay; (d) he did not open any bank account for and in the
name of Barangay 183, Zone 16; and (e) he collected fees for the use of the barangay chapel without remitting any single centavo to
the barangay treasurer.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the administrative complaint denying all the charges and contending that the complaint was filed
to harass him.
In a Decision dated May 22, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman declared respondent guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and dismissed him from the service, thus:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, respondent CELSO R. SANTIAGO, Barangay Chairman of Barangay 183, Zone 16
of the Second District of Manila is hereby found GUILTY of the administrative offenses of DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT and
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE with the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE
pursuant to the pertinent provision of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
The City Mayor of Manila is hereby directed to immediately implement this DECISION in accordance with law and to inform this office of
its initial action within fifteen (15) days upon receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and an urgent motion to hold in abeyance the implementation of the Decision, but both
motions were denied by the Office of the Ombudsman in an Order dated July 24, 2001.
Thus, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a "Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandatory Injunction with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order." Apparently, the Court of Appeals considered this action a petition for review.
In its Decision3 dated June 18, 2003, the Court of Appeals partially granted the petition, thus:
However, assuming arguendo, that petitioner is administratively liable, public respondent has no authority to directly dismiss the
petitioner from the government service, more particularly from his elective position of Barangay Captain. (Renato A. Tapiador vs. Office
of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 129124, March 15, 2002)
xxx
Clearly, public respondent has the duty to investigate and prosecute only for and in its behalf, civil, criminal, and administrative offenses
committed by government officers and employees embodied in Sections 15 and 11 of R.A. 6770 (George Uy vs. the Hon.
Sandiganbayan, et al., 354 SCRA 651). It cannot directly impose any disciplinary measure upon any erring public officer.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The portions of the Decision dated May 22,
2001 rendered by the Office of the Ombudsman in Administrative Case No. OMB-0-00-0828 for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, ordering the dismissal of petitioner and directing the City Mayor of Manila to
implement said Decision are hereby DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution 4 of
December 8, 2003.
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the obiter dictum in the case of Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman 5 to the effect that the
Ombudsman has no authority to directly dismiss an erring public official or employee from the government service 6 is not a controlling
doctrine.
For his part, respondent maintains that the petition should be denied for lack of merit.
The issue for our resolution is whether the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss erring government officials or employees.
Section 13(3), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
Invoking Tapiador, respondent contends that the word "recommend" be given its literal meaning, that is, that the Ombudsman’s action,
pursuant to the above provision, is only recommendatory.
In Ledesma v. Court of Appeals,7 we held:
Several reasons militate against a literal interpretation of the subject constitutional provision. Firstly, a cursory reading
of Tapiador reveals that the main point of the case was the failure of the complainant therein to present substantial evidence to prove
the charges of the administrative case. The statement that made reference to the power of the Ombudsman is, at best, merely an obiter
dictum and, as it is unsupported by sufficient explanation, is susceptible to varying interpretations, as what precisely is before us in this
case. Hence, it cannot be cited as a doctrinal declaration of this Court nor is it safe from judicial examination.
In interpreting a statute, care should be given that every part thereof be given effect. 8 Hence, the use of the word "recommend" must be
read in conjunction with the words "ensure compliance therewith" in order not to run counter to the intention of the framers of the
Constitution to give the Ombudsman full and complete disciplinary authority, with powers that are not merely persuasive in character. In
fact, Section 13(3), Article XI is complemented by Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6770 9 which reads:
SEC. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. – The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
...
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public officer or employee at fault or who neglects to perform an act
or discharge a duty required by law, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21 of this Act: Provided, That the refusal by any officer
without just cause to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or
employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law shall be a ground for disciplinary action
against said officer; x x x
Considering that the refusal, without just cause, of any officer to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to penalize an erring officer or
employee is a ground for disciplinary action, it follows that the Ombudsman’s "recommendation" is not merely advisory but is actually
mandatory within the bounds of law.10
At any rate, the power of the Ombudsman to directly remove an erring public official has been jurisprudentially settled. In Estarija v.
Ranada,11 we ruled:
The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His office was given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely
functional but also effective. Thus, we hold that under Republic Act No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the
constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the
Judiciary. (Emphasis supplied).
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66744 are
REVERSED. The Decision dated May 22, 2001 of the Office of the Ombudsman is AFFIRMED.

COMPLAINT FOR IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

HON. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA,

Respondent,
x---------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT
Complainants, by counsel, respectfully state:
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
This is a verified complaint for the impeachment of respondent Joseph E. Estrada, incumbent President of the Republic of the
Philippines, upon the grounds mentioned below. This complaint is filed pursuant to the provisions of Article XI (Accountability of Public
Officers), Sections 2 and 3 of the Philippine Constitution.
This complaint, as far as private complainants are concerned, is endorsed by Congressmen Heherson T. Alvarez and Ernesto F.
Herrera.
THE PARTIES
Complainants are Filipino citizens, of legal ages, and with addresses above mentioned and may be served with summons and other
processes through their counsel, Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales at Rm. 508, J & T Building, R. Magsaysay Boulevard, Sta. Mesa, Manila
and the Public Interest Law Center with address at Kaija Building, 7836 Makati Avenue, Makati City; while respondent is the incumbent
President of the Republic of the Philippines and may be served with summons and other processes of this august body at the Office of
the President, Malacañang, Manila.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On June 30, 1998, respondent took his oath as the 13th President of the Republic of the Philippines, stating:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithful and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines, preserve and defend
its constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the nation. So help me
God."
2. On July 1, 1998, he assumed his duties and responsibilities as such. This complaint for impeachment is based on the following
grounds:
 I. THAT RESPONDENT COMMITTED BRIBERY;
II. THAT RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES;
III. THAT RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST;
IV. THAT RESPONDENT CULPABLY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION.

pursuant to the Constitution which provides:

"Section 2. The President, the Vice President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of the constitutional
commission, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for and conviction of, culpable of
the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft, and corruption, other higher crimes or betrayal of public trust. " (Article XI)
DISCUSSION

I. That respondent committed bribery.

Complainants accuse respondent of committing bribery committed as follows:
"That from November 1998 to August 2000, respondent has received P10 million a month as bribery from jueteng lords as protection
money channeled through Luis C. Singson, provincial governor of Ilocos Sur as may be seen from his affidavit dated September 14,
2000 (Annex "A" hereof)."
pursuant to the Constitution which provides:
II. That respondent committed graft and corrupt practices.
President Joseph E. Estrada violated the Constitution and stands guilty of graft and corruption when he directly requested or received
for his personal benefit P130 million out of the P200 million released by Secretary Benjamin Diokno of the Department of Budget and
Management allocated under R. A. 7171 in violation of Section 3(c) of R. A. 3019, as may be seen from the affidavit of Luis C. Singson,
provincial governor of Ilocos Sur, dated September 25, 2000 (Annex "B" hereof).
President Joseph E. Estrada violated the Constitution and stands guilty of graft and corruption when he participated directly in the real
estate business thru family-controlled corporation which constructed 36 townhouses in Vermont Park, Executive Village, Antipolo City,
as shown in the PCIJ in the article on President Joseph E. Estrada's family and financial interest. He also violated the Anti-Graft Law he
is sworn to uphold. He filed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999, stating therein that he and his wife and children
have business interests in only three (3) corporations. The President by that sworn statement also committed perjury and the offense of
unexplained wealth because records show that he and his wife and mistresses and their children have other interests in other
companies outside of the firms listed in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities. (Annex "C" hereof).
III. That respondent betrayed the public trust.
President Joseph E. Estrada betrayed public trust and violated his own oath of office when he unduly intervened in the Securities and
Exchange Commission on behalf of a presidential crony.
Barely two months after assuming office in 1998, the President referred to the Philippine Gaming and Amusement Board (Pagcor) the
application for an online bingo of Best World Gaming and Entertainment Corp. Despite absence of any bidding or notice to the public,
Pagcor acted expeditiously and granted said corporation an exclusive franchise to operate online bingo nationwide on December 3,
1998 (Annex "D" hereof).
Therefore, in view of alleged stock manipulation on BW shares, the Securities and Exchange Commission started an investigation.
On or about November 1999, President Estrada called Chairman Perfecto Yasay, Jr. of the Securities and Exchange Commission to
intercede for BW, claiming that its principal and majority stockholder Dante Tan was not a manipulator but a victim of transactions which
resulted in the rise and fall of BW shares, as shown by the affidavit of former Securities and Exchange Commissioner Perfecto Yasay,
Jr., which is hereto attached as Annex "E".
The President called Chairman Yasay not once but five times. The act of the President violated his solemn oath of office to execute the
law. He obstructed justice because he intervened with the duties of a public servant who was investigating transactions as a quasi
judicial officer pursuant to the mandate of the law.
President Estrada betrayed public trust when he wantonly violated his official pronouncement during his inaugural speech, when he
solemnly declared, "sa aking administrasyon, walang kamag-anak, walang kumpadre, walang kaibigan."
The majority of the people cheered. They believed in him. They trusted him after having voted him into office the highest plurality in the
election of May 1998.
He betrayed the people's trust. When his son Jinggoy Estrada got into trouble with some doctors and personnel at the Cardinal Santos
Memorial Hospital in July 30, 1999, the President defended him instead of letting the law take its course (Annex "F" hereof). As a result,
no one pursued the complaint. When another son, Jude Estrada, flew government plane to Cagayan de Oro at government expense,
he also got into trouble, leaving the hotel where he stayed without paying the bills worth more than P60,000. Again, the President
defended him instead of letting the law take its course.
He appointed Cecilia de Castro, a cousin, as presidential assistant, although he disclaimed knowing her in the wake of the textbooks
scam in 1998 (Annex "G" hereof). He appointed a brother-in-law, Captain Rufino F. Pimentel, as director of Pagcor (Annex "H" hereof).
He appointed another brother-in-law, Raul de Guzman, as member of the board of Regents of the University of the Philippines (Annex
"I" hereof), and a nephew-in-law, the son of Mr. de Guzman, as presidential consultant on environment and water (Annex "J" hereof).
He appointed more than a hundred kumpadres and kaibigans as presidential assistants/consultants, extended franchises and favors
such as the ones specified 2in Annex "K" hereof.
President Estrada has often proclaimed that his main program is to uplift the poor. But records show that during his tenure as President,
he focused mainly on the participation in business for himself, his family and friends. The Philippine Center for Investigative
Journalism has revealed that there exist 66 corporate records wherein Estrada, his wife, mistresses and children are listed as
incorporators or board members. Thirty-one of these companies were set up during Estrada's vice-presidential tenure and one (1) since
he assumed the presidency. Altogether they had an authorized capital of P893.4 million when they were registered.
The President and his family had shares of P121.5 million with a paid-up capital of P58 million when the companies were formed.
Based on available 1998 and 1999 financial statements - 14 of the 66 companies alone have assets of over P600 million. He abetted
gambling, tolerated excessive imports and smuggling to favor friends and relatives, to the prejudice of farmers, fishermen, and
businessmen, as shown in the latest report of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (Annexes "L," "L-1" and "L-2" hereof).
President Estrada betrayed the public trust and his oath of office when he disobeyed the strict mandate of theConstitution that he
sternly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of his office.
On October 15, 1998, the First Lady, Mrs. Loi Ejercito, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission her private foundation
- the Partnership for the Poor Foundation, Inc. (Annex "M" hereof). Its primary purpose was to provide relief and livelihood to the poor.
SEC records list its address at No. 1 Polk Street, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila, which is also the legal residence of President
Estrada.
The First lady signed the articles of incorporation and by-laws as one of its five incorporating directors, another one being Ramon
Cardenas, deputy executive secretary in Malacañang.
A few months after its incorporation, the Foundation received a P100 million donation from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office to
fund its projects (Annex "N" hereof). Said donation exceeded the PCSO's combined donation of P65 million to regular PCSO
beneficiaries like orphanages and hospitals throughout the country.
The Constitution under Section 13, Article VII, expressly prohibits conflict of interest in the conduct of his office. When the President
approves a P100 million donation of government funds to private foundation organized by his wife, deliverable to his address at No. 1
Polk Street, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila, where the approving authority himself lives -- that transaction violates the no-conflict
rule mandated by the nation's fundamental law.
IV. That respondent culpably violated the Constitution.
President Estrada violated the law and his own oath of office when he ordered the Commissioner of Customs to turn over 52 luxury
vehicles to Malacañang for distribution to Cabinet members and other senior officials to give them more prestige and financial help -
contrary to his oath to execute the law faithfully because said acts clearly contravened Section 3, Paragraph A of R.A. 3015, Anti-Graft
Law, Section 2535, 2536, 2601, 2604 and 2610 of the Customs and Tariff Code.
President Estrada willfully violated the Constitution when he appointed certain members of his Cabinet, their deputies or assistants to
another office or employment in direct contravention of Section 13, Article VII of theConstitution.
Said provision is a strict prohibition that has been interpreted no less by the Supreme Court in Civil Liberties vs. Executive Secretary, 94
SCRA 320, which declared that the prohibition stands, save only when the concerned official holds the other portion in ex-officio
capacity or is otherwise allowed by the Constitution to do so. The reason for the prohibition, according to the Supreme Court, is to make
the concerned officials give full attention to their jobs to maximize public benefit.
Despite said constitutional prohibition positively interpreted by the Supreme Court, President Estrada appointed the following to other
offices or employment.
1. Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Ramon Cardenas as director of Manila economic and Cultural Office (MECO), chairman of the
Philippine Coordinating Committee in the Asian Development Bank, chairman of Philippine Retirement Authority, and member of the
Movie and Television Review and Classification Board.
2. Chief Legal Presidential Counsel Magdangal Elma, who holds Cabinet rank - chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good
Government.
3. Robert Aventajado, Secretary for Flagship Projects, garbage czar, head of solid waste management, and chief negotiator for
hostages of the Abu Sayyaf.
4. Deputy Executive Secretary for Finance and Administration Ric Tan Legada - director of PNOC Shipping and Transport Corp. and
director of United Coconut Chemicals, Inc.
5. Asst. Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Gaudencio A. Mendoza, Jr. - director of Food Terminal, Inc. and director of Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority.
6. Presidential Adviser on Development Administration Raul de Guzman - director of San Miguel Corporation, regent of the University
of the Philippines, and director of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company.

CONCLUSION

Public office is a public trust. When a teacher or government clerk commits a dishonest act. he or she is removed from the service.
When the President no less commits bribery, commits graft and corruption and other high crimes, betrays the public trust, and culpably
violates the Constitution and his own oath of office, he should also be removed.
No less than the people deserve faith and justice and honesty. No less than the Constitution mandates this. We, therefore, pray that
Congress act favorably.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this complaint after evaluation, be given due course

The Philippine Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of the office's alleged
underperformance and failure to act on several cases during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. She became the second
official after President Joseph Estradain 2000 to be impeached.
While the first impeachment complaint against her was filed in 2009, it was dismissed later in that year in a 14th Congress dominated
by Arroyo's Lakas Kampi CMD party. In 2010, with the election of Benigno Aquino III of the Liberal Party as president and
the concurrent elections to the House of Representatives and the subsequent political realignment, two impeachment cases against her
were voted as sufficient in form, substance and grounds, and the House of Representatives Committee on Justice had found probable
cause on alleged betrayal of public trust as based on the two complaints.
On March 22, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Gutierrez, sending the committee report as the Articles of
Impeachment to the Senate which will act as an impeachment court. A vote of at least two-thirds (16) of all senators (24) is required to
convict Gutierrez and remove her from office. However, Gutierrez resigned on April 29, 2011, thereby canceling the impeachment trial
of the Senate.

SUMMARY OF THE IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT v.CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA

I. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS TRACK RECORD MARKED BY PARTIALITY AND
SUBSERVIENCE IN CASES INVOLVING THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION FROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WHICH CONTINUED TO HIS DUBIOUS APPOINTMENT AS A MIDNIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE AND UP
TO THE PRESENT.
 Midnight Appointments in violation against Sec. 15, Article VII of Constitution
 Arturo de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et. al., SC held that the prohibition does
not apply to SC but only to executive department and other courts lower than SC.
 Indeed, Newsbreak report showed that “he has consistently sided with the (arroyo) administration in politically-significant
cases”. Newsbreak further reported when it tracked the voting pattern of Supreme Court justices, “Corona lodged a high 78
percent in favor of Arroyo”
 A table shows that in 10 cases show respondent’s voting pattern in cases involving Arroyo government’s frontal assaults on
constitutional rights prior to his appointment as Chief Justice.
 During his tenure as Chief Justice, Respondent also sided with Arroyo in the following 3 cases such as in (1) Biraogo v. The
Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, (2) Bai Omera D. Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive(revoking midnight appointments) and
(3) Aquino vs. COMELEC (redefining districts of camsur)
II. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST
WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED
UNDERSEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
 Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution.
 Some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of
the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
 Respondent is suspected of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts
with huge deposits (among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in the Fort in Taguig).
III. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BY
FAILING TO MEET AND OBSERVE THE STRINGENT STANDARDS UNDER ART. VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION
THAT PROVIDES THAT “[A] MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST BE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY,
PROBITY, AND INDEPENDENCE” IN ALLOWING THE SUPREME COURT TO ACT ON MERE LETTERS FILED BY A COUNSEL
WHICH CAUSED THE ISSUANCE OF FLIP-FLOPPING DECISIONS IN FINAL AND EXECUTORY CASES; IN CREATING AN
EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT WITH MRS. ARROYO THROUGH HER APPOINTMENT OF HIS WIFE TO OFFICE; AND IN
DISCUSSING WITH LITIGANTS REGARDING CASES PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
 Respondent previously served Arroyo as her chief of staff, spokesman when she was Vice-President, Presidential Chief-of-
Staff, Presidential Spokesman, and Acting Executive Secretary.
 o Flip-flopping of the Corona Court on FASAP vs. PAL on a mere letter from Philippine Airlines’ counsel Atty. Estelito
Mendoza (and also in the flip-flopping case of League of Cities v. COMELEC)
 Respondent compromised his independence when his wife, Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment as on March 23, 2007
from President Arroyo to the Board of the John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC) in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct
o serious complaints were filed against Mrs. Corona by her fellow Board members because of acts of misconduct and
negligence. Instead, on acting on the complaint, the complainants were removed and Mrs. Corona promoted as OIC
board chair
 Respondent has been reportedly using the judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to the Judiciary
personal expenditures.
 Respondent Corona discussed with litigants (Lauro Vizconde and Dante Jimenez) regarding the Vizconde massacre case,
which was then pending before the SC, and accused fellow Justice Carpio for loobying for acquittal, in violation of Code of
Conduct and Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
 Respondent Corona irregularly dismissed the Inter-petal Recreational Corporation case under suspicious circumstances.
IV. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
WHEN IT BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS BY ISSUING A “STATUS QUO ANTE”
ORDER AGAINST THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE IMPEACHMENT OF THEN
OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ.
 Respondent railroaded the proceedings in the Guttierez case in order to have a Status Quo Ante Order issued in her favor.
o Newsbreak showed that most of the justices received the Petition after the deliberations, while three (3) justices
(Velasco, Bersamin and Perez) who voted to issue the Status Quo Ante Order received the petition a day after
the status quo ante order was granted.
 Its issuance violated the principle of separation of powers since the Supreme Court prevented the House from initiating
impeachment proceedings.
V. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH WANTON ARBITRARINESS
AND PARTIALITY IN CONSISTENTLY DISREGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA AND IN DECIDING IN FAVOR OF
GERRY-MANDERING IN THE CASES INVOLVING THE 16 NEWLY-CREATED CITIES, AND THE PROMOTION OF DINAGAT
ISLAND INTO A PROVINCE.
 Respondent violated the principle of the immutability of final judgments (“flip-flopping”) known to have been instigated
through personal letters or ex-partecommunications addressed to the Respondent:
o League of Cities v. COMELEC case involving the creation of 16 new cities,
o Navarro v. Ermita which involved the promotion of Dinagat Island from municipality to province,
o FASAP v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., et al.
VI. Respondent Betrayed the Public Trust By Arrogating Unto Himself, And To A Committee He Created, The Authority And
Jurisdiction To Improperly Investigate An Alleged Erring Member Of The Supreme Court For The Purpose Of Exculpating Him. Such
Authority And Jurisdiction Is Properly Reposed By The Constitution In the House of Representatives via Impeachment.
 Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary,it was alleged that rampant plagiarism was committed by the ponente, Associate Justice
Mariano del Castillo
 It appears that, with a clear intent of exonerating a member of the Supreme Court, Respondent, in violation of the Constitution,
formed an Ethics Committee thereby arrogating unto himself, and to a Committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to
investigate an alleged member of the Supreme Court.
VII. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS PARTIALITY IN GRANTING A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) IN FAVOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HER HUSBAND JOSE
MIGUEL ARROYO IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE PROSECUTION AND TO FRUSTRATE THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE, AND IN DISTORTING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE TRO IN VIEW OF A
CLEAR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S OWN TRO.
 The Supreme Court, under the Respondent, immediately acted upon the Petition and granted the TRO despite the fact that
there are clear inconsistencies in former President Arroyo’s petition
 It appears from reports that the ponenteto whom the petitions were raffled was an Associate Justice. Under the Internal Rules
of the Supreme Court, a TRO can only be considered upon the recommendation of the ponente. In view of certain objections
against the grant of the TRO, a holding of a hearing within the short period of five (5) days was recommended. Despite this
recommendation, the Respondent engineered a majority of 8 votes (as against five dissenters) the immediate grant and
issuance of the TRO in favour of former President Arroyo and her husband in blatant violation of their own internal rules.
 Despite the conditions laid by the SC for the issuance of the TRO, Respondent allowed the issuance of the TRO
notwithstanding the fact there was non-compliance of an essential pre-condition
o Due to the Arroyos’ abject failure to comply with Condition 2, the Supreme Court en banc in its November 18, 2011
deliberations, by a vote of7–6, found that there was no compliance with the second condition of the TRO.
Consequently, for failure to comply with an essential condition for the TRO, the TRO is not effective. However, by a
vote of 7-6, the Supreme Court decided there was no need to explicitly state the legal effect on the TRO of the
noncompliance by petitioners with Condition Number 2 of the earlier Resolution.
o However, the SC decided that the TRO was effective despite non-compliance with an essential condition of the TRO.
It is notable that Respondent did not chastise Marquez for his outrightly false and public misrepresentation.
o Worse, the Respondent did not correct the decision that was issued despite the fact that the decision did not reflect
the agreement and decision made by the Supreme Court during their deliberations on November 18, 2011.
VIII. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPTION WHEN HE FAILED
AND REFUSED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE
JUDICIARY (SAJ) COLLECTIONS.
 Respondent has reportedly failed and refused to report on the status of the JDF Funds and the SAJ collections.
 There is likewise the reported failure of Respondent to account for funds released and spent for unfilled positions in the
judiciary and from authorized and funded but not created courts.
o In particular, the annual audit report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines contained the observation that
unremitted funds to the Bureau of Treasury amounted to P5.38 Billion
o the Special allowance for Judiciary along with the General Fund, Judiciary Development Fund in the amount of
P559.5 Million were misstated resulting from delayed and/or non-preparation
o of bank reconciliation statements and non-
recording /uncorrected reconciling items.