By Atty. James Jimenez
The word “impeach” has roots in some very old languages. Deriving from the Latin impedicare – to shackle or chain; and influenced by the old French empechier, which means to hinder or prevent, the term eventually evolved to mean “to accuse” or “to bring charges against” a person. By the 14th century, the word had come to especially refer to charging someone in authority with some misconduct or abuse of official power.
Today, the term specifically refers to the process of charging, and potentially unseating, a high ranking official for serious misconduct – in the Philippines, particularly, these grounds include: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.
Given the nature of the grounds for impeachment, it should come as no surprise that this mechanism – which can be found in Section 3, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, entitled Accountability of Public Officers – is available only as against the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may all be removed by impeachment, whereas all “other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.”
The Process in the House
Quite appropriately, impeachment isn’t easy to get off the ground.
First, impeachment can only originate from the House of Representatives where a complaint can be filed either by a member of the House of Representatives, or by a private citizen (or in the case of the recent impeachment complaint filed against the Vice President, by a group of citizens), provided that the complaint is then endorsed by a Member of the House. Additionally, the rules allow the filing of a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment by at least 1/3 of House Members – given that there are 318 Members of the House in the 19th Congress, this comes out to 106.
Second, once the impeachment complaint has been filed, it will then be referred to the Speaker of the House who has 10 days thereafter to include it in the House’s Order of Business. Once included, the complaint must be referred, within three session days, to the House Committee on Justice for the determination of whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance.
If the Committee finds that the complaint is insufficient in form, it returns the complaint to the House Secretary General, within three session days, with a written explanation of the insufficiency. On the other hand, if the Committee finds the complaint sufficient in form, it then proceeds to determine whether it is likewise sufficient in substance.
Under the Rules, the requirement of substance is met if there is a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee. If the committee finds that the complaint is not sufficient in substance, the complaint is dismissed.
It is important to note that at this point, the complaint is still in the Committee, which now proceeds to determine the existence of probable cause.
The Committee on Justice after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, then submits its report to the House containing its findings and recommendations, within sixty (60) session days from the time it received the verified complaint and/or resolution. Together with the report shall be a formal resolution of the Committee called the Articles of Impeachment, which shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten days.
A roll call vote of at least one-third of all Members of the House – each member has to rise and say what their vote is – is needed for approval of the Articles of Impeachment. If the Articles pass, they are transmitted to the Senate.
If, on the other hand, the Committee on Justice recommends the dismissal of the complaint, it will refer that recommendation to the Plenary anyway, where a 1/3 vote of all the Members will be needed to overturn the Committee’s recommendation.
If the Articles of impeachment are approved, we say that the respondent has been impeached. Importantly, however, this does not mean that the respondent is automatically kicked out of office. In order to make that happen, a trial must be held.
Trial in the Senate
Just as the House holds the exclusive power to initiate impeachment, the Senate holds the exclusive authority to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
When the Senators are assembled for this purpose, they are under oath or affirmation. Here in the Philippines, perhaps to underscore the gravity of their role, we call them Senator-Judges. The Senate President presides over the trial, except when it is the President of the Philippines in the dock. In that case, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides, without a vote.
Just like in a real court, the impeached party has the right to a defense, whereas the House of Representatives appoints prosecutors to present the case. And just like in a real court, witnesses, evidence, and arguments are presented before the Senate.
No person can be convicted by the Senate-Court unless two-thirds of all the Senator-Judges concur. And although a conviction in an impeachment only results in removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, the convicted person will nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law.
Inoculation
Under the Constitution, only one impeachment proceeding per year is allowed. Theoretically, this safeguard prevents misuse of impeachment as a political tool. In the past, however, some have pointed out that filing a sure-to-fail impeachment complaint once per year, was an effective way of inoculating, so to speak, the impeachable officer, from more serious complaints.
If nothing else, we’re in for a very interesting December.
