Is Impeachment Legal in the Philippines

In 1964, President Diosdado Macapagal was charged with illegally importing rice to gain public support in an election, illegally firing civil servants, using the military to intimidate political opposition, and ordering the deportation of an American businessman detained by Congress in violation of the separation of powers. A congressional committee denied all the accusations. The impeachment process began on December 7, 2000, presided over by then-Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., but ended on January 16, 2001, after private plaintiffs in the House of Representatives left the impeachment process to protest the perceived dictatorial bias of the eleven Senate justices who supported President Estrada. The walkout led to the second EDPB revolution and the overthrow of President Estrada. A verified impeachment complaint must be filed with the Office of the Secretary General of the House of Representatives. It would be immediately transmitted to the speaker. Which branches, offices, agencies or instruments of government – however they act, or with what colour or legitimacy they may claim power – are excluded from judicial review? The clear answer is: none, because as long as the Constitution is not amended, the judiciary has the duty (and not just the power) to determine whether there has been a serious abuse of power, which amounts to a lack or excessive competence on the part of a branch or instrument of government. I am of the opinion that, despite the fact that there are constitutional norms – culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust, other serious crimes, etc. – the authors left them “open” in anticipation of the convoluted paths of human injustice and the various forms that high officials might later prove unworthy of high office. The Constitution has established minimum standards, and while these minimum standards are constitutional standards that would provide the possibility of judicial review under the Francisco doctrine, it would be preferable for the Supreme Court to dismiss an application for judicial review of whether or not a particular article or allegation meets the level of a criminal offence.

since the nature of the issue is closely related and inseparable. bound by the guilt or non-fault of the defendant. Whether the non-disclosure of assets in SALN reaches the level of a criminal offense overlaps with the question: is the accused guilty of a crime for which he or she can be charged – and the latter question is clearly left to the sole authority of the Senate, which is in the process of impeachment. But it is not only with respect to impeachment proceedings that the Constitution gives exclusive jurisdiction to the chambers of Congress. With regard to the electoral tribunals of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the provision reads as follows: “The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an electoral tribunal, which shall be the sole judge of all competitions related to the election, return and qualification of their respective members.” One of the senators rose to advance a rather strange theory: Supreme Court precedents do not necessarily bind the impeachment court because of the sui generis nature of impeachment. Obviously, this is a good example of non sequitur. The case of Francisco v. The House of Representatives (2003) certainly sets a binding precedent precisely because it dealt with the power of judicial review of impeachment proceedings. Zil The time of day the Senate meets for the hearing of the impeachment is (unless otherwise ordered) 2 o`clock in the afternoon; And when the time comes, the president of such a negotiation will provoke the proclamation, and the business of the trial will continue.

The adjournment of the Senate sitting in these proceedings is not deemed to be an adjournment of the Senate as a legislative body, and after such adjournment, the Senate resumes consideration of its legislative proceedings. While it is true that a written judgment is not even necessary and the Constitution only requires senators to vote on the verdict, since the trial is a trial and the Senate sits as a court, it stands to reason that the verdict must be based on evidence. Everything else leads to a Bill of Attainder. And if there is an evaluation of the evidence, there can be a serious abuse of power, which may consist in completely ignoring the evidence presented. Obviously, the same avenue is open to prosecution, because although impeachment has been deemed strictly criminal, I do not feel inclined to apply the constitutional prohibition of double prosecution in impeachment proceedings. On the basis of Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution, the following officials may be charged: It is also clear that the accused may challenge the adequacy of the articles of impeachment prior to trial. This would be analogous to certain court proceedings, one of which is the request to rescind the information or the hearing conducted by the Sandiganbayn in cases in which it is in R.A. 3019 cases to determine whether the information is properly submitted and sufficient for the purposes of preventive suspension. Theoretically, therefore, the sufficiency of the articles is questionable – and the conformity of the allegations with the grounds set out in the Constitution – can be the subject of debate and review prior to trial.