Skip to main content

Impeachment Process in the Philippines: A Guide to the 1987 Constitution for Officials' Removal

Understanding the Impeachment of Philippine Government Officials

Sec. 2, Article XI provides:

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.

Understanding the Impeachment Process: Step-by-Step Guide

Impeachment is a legal mechanism used to hold top government officials accountable for serious offenses. In the Philippines, this process applies to the President, Vice President, Supreme Court Justices, Members of Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman for crimes such as treason, bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, or culpable violation of the Constitution.

Here’s a step-by-step breakdown of how impeachment works:

Step 1: Initiating Impeachment

There are three ways to initiate impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives: 1️⃣ A Member of the House files a verified complaint. 2️⃣ A citizen files a complaint, but it must be endorsed by a Member of the House. 3️⃣ At least one-third (1/3) of all House Members directly file a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment.

Once filed, the Speaker of the House refers the complaint to the Committee on Justice within 10 session days for preliminary assessment.

Step 2: Finding Probable Cause

After receiving the complaint, the Committee on Justice determines if it meets sufficiency requirements: ✅ Sufficient in Form – The complaint must be properly structured and meet official standards. ✅ Sufficient in Substance – The complaint must clearly present facts that justify impeachment.

If the complaint fails either test, it is dismissed. If it passes, the respondent (accused official) is notified and given time to submit a formal answer.

Next, both sides submit evidence and affidavits, which the committee reviews to determine if probable cause exists. If probable cause is found, the committee schedules formal hearings.

Step 3: House Action and Approval

Once hearings conclude, the Committee on Justice submits a report to the House of Representatives, recommending: ✔️ Approval of Impeachment Articles, OR ❌ Dismissal of the Complaint

To approve impeachment, at least one-third (1/3) of House Members must vote in favor. If approved, the case moves to the Senate for trial. If dismissed, the complaint is permanently dropped, unless overridden by a one-third (1/3) vote of House Members.

Step 4: Senate Trial and Verdict

The House of Representatives acts as the prosecution during the trial, presenting its case before the Senate, which serves as the Impeachment Court.

Senators then: 📌 Examine arguments and evidence presented by both parties. 📌 Conduct hearings and cross-examinations. 📌 Vote to convict or acquit the accused official.

🔴 Conviction results in removal from office and possible disqualification from holding public office in the future. 🟢 Acquittal means the official remains in position, and no impeachment case can be filed against them for one year.

Key Limitations of Impeachment

🔹 Only one impeachment proceeding per official per year – This prevents excessive political harassment. 🔹 Strict procedural rules apply – Similar to criminal trials, impeachment proceedings must follow due process and legal technicalities.

Conclusion

The impeachment process is designed to hold high-ranking officials accountable while ensuring a fair, legal trial. While the House initiates and prosecutes, the Senate ultimately decides whether an official should be removed from office.

For the complete rules on impeachment, visit the official law library source 

Below is the process:

*For reference, HoR refers to House of Representatives

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Mandamus and its Application in Judicial Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform a duty expressly required by law . It applies when: 1️⃣ An entity unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty arising from an office or trust. 2️⃣ An entity unlawfully excludes another from a right or office to which they are entitled. 3️⃣ There is no other adequate or speedy legal remedy available. 📌 Relevant Case: De Leon v. Duterte (G.R. No. 252118, 2020) Essential Elements of a Mandamus Petition 📌 To successfully invoke mandamus, the petitioner must prove: ✔ Legal Right – The petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to compel the action. ✔ Correlative Obligation – The respondent must have a duty to respect that right . ✔ Violation by the Respondent – There must be an act or omission violating the petitioner’s right . ✔ Refusal to Comply – A failure to perform the duty , whether explicit or implied, triggers a cause of action. 📌 Relevant Case: Phi...
Read more

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more

Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 |March 20, 2013

Case Digest: Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 | March 20, 2013 Ponente: 📌 Topic: Applicability of Reserva Troncal – First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios. Facts The disputed parcel of land was originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza, who inherited it from Placido and Dominga Mendoza through an oral partition. Upon Exequiel’s death, ownership was transferred to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s passing, Gregoria became the sole owner. Gregoria died intestate, and her aunt Victoria Pantaleon, Leonor’s sister, adjudicated the property to herself as the sole surviving heir. Petitioners (grandchildren of Placido and Dominga) argued that the property should have been reserved for them under Article 891 of the Civil Code on Reserva Troncal. They filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance, which the RTC granted. However, the Court of A...
Read more