DEEP RESEARCH IN TRENDING PHILIPPINE LEGAL ISSUES
Impeachment of the Vice President of the Philippines
Constitutional
Basis for Impeachment
Article
XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
provides the framework for impeachment of certain high officials, including the
Vice President. Under Article XI, Section 2, the Vice President (along with the
President, Supreme Court Justices, members of Constitutional Commissions, and
the Ombudsman) may be removed from office only by impeachment. This
means the Vice President can be formally charged and tried for serious offenses
by Congress, mirroring the process applicable to the President (indeed, Article
VII, Section 3 explicitly notes the Vice President “may be removed from office
in the same manner as the President”). Article XI, Section 3 vests the House
of Representatives with the exclusive power to initiate impeachment
cases and the Senate with the sole power to try and decide such
cases. The Constitution thus ensures that impeachment is a political process
conducted by the legislative branch, with defined roles for each house of
Congress.
Grounds
for Impeachment
The
Constitution strictly limits the grounds on which an impeachable official like
the Vice President can be charged. Article XI, Section 2 lists the following grounds
for impeachment:
- Culpable
Violation of the Constitution
– A willful and deliberate breach of the Constitution.
- Treason – Betrayal of the country
typically by aiding enemies in war.
- Bribery – Accepting something of value in
exchange for official action.
- Graft
and Corruption –
Serious misuse of public office for private gain (often defined by law).
- Other
High Crimes –
Severe crimes of a similar gravity to the above (e.g. offenses against
public order or justice).
- Betrayal
of Public Trust –
A broad category encompassing acts gravely breaching the public’s trust
(this can include gross negligence, abuse of power, or other heinous
misconduct not necessarily criminal but deemed unacceptable for a high
official).
These
grounds set a high bar – only serious offenses that strike at the integrity of
public office qualify. Lesser misconduct by the Vice President would not reach
the constitutional threshold for impeachment (such lesser offenses may be
addressed by other means but not by impeachment).
Initiating
Impeachment in the House of Representatives
Impeachment
proceedings begin in the House of Representatives. The process may be initiated in any of
the following ways as outlined in Article XI, Section 3(2):
- By a
House Member: Any
member of the House may file a verified impeachment complaint (under
oath).
- By a
Citizen with Endorsement:
A private citizen may file a verified complaint, provided at least
one House member endorses it.
- By
One-Third of House Members:
The Constitution also allows impeachment by a verified complaint or
a resolution of impeachment filed or backed by at least one-third of
all House members. If at least one-third of the House (33% of all
Representatives) endorse the complaint or sign a resolution, this has
special significance as discussed below.
When
a valid impeachment complaint is filed (under the first two methods), it is
referred to the House Committee on Justice for evaluation. The Committee
first determines if the complaint is sufficient in form and substance
according to its rules. If the complaint is found sufficient, the respondent
(in this case, the Vice President) is notified and allowed to answer the
allegations, and the Committee proceeds to determine if there is probable
cause or sufficient grounds to impeach. This often involves hearings where
evidence is presented. If the Committee finds the charges have merit, it will
prepare and endorse Articles of Impeachment (formal charges) to the full
House. Conversely, if the Committee finds the complaint insufficient or lacking
in merit, it will recommend dismissal.
House
Voting Thresholds: In a
plenary session, the House of Representatives then votes on whether to impeach
the official by approving the Articles of Impeachment. The Constitution
requires a minimum of one-third of all House members to vote in favor
for the impeachment to succeed. This one-third requirement applies whether the
Committee recommended approval or not – at least 1/3 of the House (each
member’s vote duly recorded) must affirm the charges to impeach. Notably,
if the Committee had recommended against impeachment, the Constitution still
allows the House to impeach by overriding the Committee’s report with a
one-third vote. In practice, one-third of the current House membership is the
critical constitutional threshold to send the case to trial.
The
One-Third “Direct Impeachment” Route:
If an impeachment complaint or resolution is initially filed with the
endorsement/signatures of at least one-third of all House members, the
Constitution deems this equivalent to the House itself initiating impeachment.
In that scenario, the normal committee investigation can be bypassed – the
complaint automatically becomes the Articles of Impeachment and is sent
directly to the Senate for trial “forthwith”. In other words, gathering
one-third of the House at the outset allows immediate impeachment without the
usual committee vetting, since the substantial support indicates the House’s
collective will. This procedure was used, for example, in the impeachment of
Chief Justice Corona in 2011, when more than one-third of congressmen signed
the complaint, leading to its direct transmittal to the Senate.
One-Year
Bar Rule: An important
constitutional check is the limit on frequency of impeachment attempts. Article
XI, Section 3(5) provides that “No impeachment proceedings shall be
initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one
year.” This means that the House can entertain at most one impeachment
effort per official per year. Once an impeachment complaint against the
Vice President has been initiated (see discussion of “initiation” below), any
further complaint against that same official is barred for one year. This rule
is designed to prevent harassment or instability through repeated impeachment
filings. It also forces the House to consolidate any accusations and proceed
deliberately. We discuss below how the Supreme Court has interpreted
“initiated” in this context, especially in relation to multiple complaints (see
Francisco and Gutierrez cases).
The
Senate Impeachment Trial Process
If
the House votes to impeach the Vice President (i.e. approves at least one
Article of Impeachment with the required one-third vote), the case is
transmitted to the Senate, which then convenes as an impeachment court.
The Senate has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases under
the Constitution. All Senators are required to take an oath or affirmation to
do impartial justice in accordance with the impeachment rules. The impeachment
trial is a formal proceeding but is political in nature – Senators act as both
judges and jury, and House members (called House prosecutors) argue the
case against the respondent, who is usually represented by counsel.
Presiding
Officer: For the
impeachment of the President, the Constitution mandates that the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court shall preside over the Senate trial (to ensure
independence). However, when officials other than the President are
tried – such as the Vice President – the Senate President typically
presides. The Senate President (or the presiding officer) rules on trial
procedures and evidence, but substantive decisions (like verdict) are decided
by the Senators as a whole. The trial follows the Senate’s own Impeachment
Rules, which Congress is empowered to promulgate. These rules outline
procedures for summoning witnesses, admitting evidence, and the sequence of
trial (opening statements, presentation of evidence by the prosecution and
defense, cross-examinations, closing arguments, etc.). Notably, impeachment
trials are not criminal proceedings, but many evidentiary rules and due process
safeguards still apply to ensure fairness.
Conduct
of the Trial: The
impeachment trial in the Senate functions much like a court proceeding in form.
The House prosecutors present the Articles of Impeachment (the charges) and
support them with evidence and witness testimony. The Vice President
(respondent) has the right to be heard, to have counsel, to present evidence
and witnesses in defense, and to cross-examine the House’s witnesses. Senators
may also pose questions to either side (often through the presiding officer).
Throughout the trial, Senators must remain impartial and base their judgment on
the evidence and the national interest, rather than party affiliation or
constituent pressure – reflecting the “quasi-judicial” character of
impeachment. The trial continues until both prosecution and defense have rested
their cases and given closing arguments.
After
the evidentiary phase, the Senate will deliberate and then proceed to vote on
each Article of Impeachment. According to the current Senate rules (19th
Congress), all articles must be voted upon after the full trial – in
other words, the Senate does not render a verdict until the trial on all
charges is completed. Each Article (charge) is voted on separately, and a
senator will stand and declare a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty” on each
charge when called. An impeached official can be convicted on any single
Article if it garners the constitutionally required support, as explained
below. If none of the Articles obtains the required guilty votes, the
official is acquitted of all charges.
Vote
Threshold in the Senate for Conviction
To
convict the Vice President (or any impeached official), the Constitution
requires a very high threshold: “No person shall be convicted without the
concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” This means at
least two-thirds of the entire Senate membership must vote “guilty” on
an article of impeachment for a conviction. With the Senate composed of 24
Senators, a conviction requires at least 16 affirmative votes (assuming no
vacancies). Importantly, the two-thirds is counted against the total number of
Senate seats, not just those present, so abstentions or absences effectively
count as “no” votes. This supermajority requirement is intended to ensure that
removal of a high official has broad support and is not done lightly or on a
strictly partisan slim majority. It mirrors the grave nature of impeachment, as
overturning the mandate of an elected national official (like the Vice
President) or removing an appointee confirmed by legislators should only occur
with overwhelming consensus.
In
practice, after the trial the Senators vote on each article. If at least 16
Senators (out of 24) find the Vice President guilty of any one article, the
Senate will render a judgment of conviction on that article. (It is not
necessary for all articles to receive two-thirds votes – conviction on even one
article is sufficient to impose the penalty.) Conversely, if no article meets
the two-thirds threshold – even if a simple majority of Senators favor guilt –
the result is acquittal and the Vice President remains in office. Each
Senator may have the opportunity to explain their vote briefly for the record,
but unlike a court, the Senate need not issue a written decision with findings
of fact and law. The vote totals on each article are the operative result.
Legal
Effects of Impeachment Conviction
If
the Senate convicts the Vice President on an impeachment charge, the immediate
effect under the Constitution is removal from office. Upon conviction,
the official is ousted from the Vice Presidency, and the office becomes vacant
(to be filled according to constitutional succession or appointment
mechanisms). In addition, the Senate may impose the penalty of
disqualification from holding any public office in the future. Article XI,
Section 3(7) states that “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.” This means the Senate’s power is limited
to stripping the official of their current post and barring them from future
positions – it cannot impose jail time, fines, or other criminal penalties as
part of the impeachment judgment. The disqualification (often construed as
perpetual absolute disqualification) is a lifetime ban from any government
position, applied at the Senate’s discretion upon conviction.
Notably,
the President of the Philippines cannot pardon an official convicted in
an impeachment trial. The Constitution explicitly prohibits pardons in
impeachment cases (Article VII, Section 19). This prevents the President from
undermining the outcome of the impeachment process through executive clemency.
After
removal, the former Vice President may still face criminal or civil
liability for the same acts that led to impeachment. Impeachment is sui
generis (unique political proceeding) and not a criminal trial, so the
principle of double jeopardy does not apply. Article XI, Section 3(7) provides
that the party convicted “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law” after impeachment. For
example, if the Vice President was impeached and removed for graft and
corruption, he or she could subsequently be charged under criminal statutes for
the corrupt acts in the regular courts. The impeachment merely removes the
immunity of high office and the official’s title; it does not substitute for
ordinary legal proceedings. Conversely, if the Senate acquits the Vice
President, he or she remains in office. An acquittal does not preclude a new
impeachment after one year if new accusations or evidence emerge,
because the Constitution only bars initiating another impeachment within
a one-year period. (Of course, repeated impeachment attempts would be
constrained by political considerations and the substantial support needed in
Congress.)
Pertinent
Jurisprudence and Interpretation of Impeachment Rules
Philippine
jurisprudence has shaped the understanding of impeachment procedures, ensuring
that Congress adheres to the Constitution’s limits. Two Supreme Court cases in
particular – Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003) and Gutierrez
v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice (2011) – have clarified
how the rules on initiating impeachment are interpreted:
Francisco
v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 (Nov. 10, 2003). This case arose from an attempt to
impeach Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. for a second time within the same
year. The first impeachment complaint (filed earlier in 2003) had been
dismissed in the House Committee, and shortly thereafter a second impeachment
complaint was filed by House members opposed to the Chief Justice. Davide’s
supporters challenged the second complaint as unconstitutional, citing the
one-year bar in Article XI, Section 3(5). The House leadership argued that the
first complaint was never “initiated” by the House as a whole (since it did not
reach the plenary vote), and thus the one-year prohibition had not been
triggered. At that time, the House’s internal rules defined “initiation” of
impeachment in a way that allowed a complaint to be dismissed in committee
without counting against the one-year rule.
The
Supreme Court, in Francisco, invalidated the House’s interpretation
and firmly upheld the one-year bar. The Court held that the constitutional term
**“to initiate” an impeachment means the filing of a verified complaint and
its referral to the House Committee on Justice, nothing more. In an
important passage, the Court explained that an impeachment proceeding “begins
when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for
action. This is the initiating step which triggers the series of steps that
follow.” Once that has occurred, any second impeachment complaint against
the same official within one year is barred, even if the first complaint
was not acted upon by the full House. In Davide’s case, since the first
complaint had already been filed and referred months earlier, the second
complaint (filed just days after the first was dismissed in committee) was deemed
to violate the one-year rule. The Supreme Court thus struck down the second
impeachment attempt as unconstitutional.
Beyond
the one-year rule, Francisco is notable for stating that impeachment is not
entirely beyond judicial review. The Court held that while the substance of
impeachment (the decision to impeach or acquit) is a political question, the
judiciary can intervene to ensure constitutional procedures and limits
are followed. In other words, the House’s “exclusive power” to impeach does not
give it license to violate the clear procedural restrictions in the
Constitution. Francisco affirmed that the Supreme Court may exercise its
power (under Article VIII, Section 1) to check grave abuse of discretion by
Congress in impeachment cases – such as enforcing the one-year bar or other
“judicially discoverable standards”. However, the decision to actually impeach
(if procedurally compliant) or the Senate’s judgment to convict or acquit is
not subject to court reversal. This balance preserves the impeachment powers of
Congress while ensuring they operate within constitutional bounds.
Gutierrez
v. House Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459 (Feb. 15, 2011). This case involved Ombudsman Merceditas
Gutierrez, who faced two impeachment complaints in 2010. The complaints,
filed by different groups, alleged various offenses (all within the permitted
grounds) and were referred to the House Justice Committee at roughly the same
time. The Committee decided to consider the two complaints simultaneously
(consolidating the proceedings), finding both sufficient in form and substance
and proceeding with hearings on the merits of both together. Gutierrez
petitioned the Supreme Court to stop the process, arguing that accepting two complaints
violated the one-year bar – she contended that once the first complaint was
filed, any additional complaint, even if pending concurrently, amounted to a
second initiation in the same year.
The
Supreme Court in Gutierrez rejected the Ombudsman’s petition and
allowed the impeachment proceedings to go forward. It clarified how the
one-year rule should be applied in this context. The Court held that the
constitutional prohibition on multiple impeachments per year “does not concern itself
with the referral or processing by the Committee” so long as the complaints are
addressed in a single consolidated proceeding. In line with Francisco,
the Court reiterated that an impeachment is “initiated” when a verified
complaint is filed and referred to the committee; thus, the simultaneous
referral of two complaints on the same day is treated as one initiation.
In practical terms, if multiple impeachment complaints against an official are
filed at or around the same time (within the same opening of Congress), the
House may consider them together as one combined impeachment case without
violating the one-year rule. The rationale is that only one impeachment
proceeding is ultimately under way (which may encompass several charges or
complainants, consolidated), and only one set of Articles of Impeachment can
emerge and be sent to the Senate within that year. The Supreme Court found that
the House Committee acted within its authority by consolidating the complaints
and that this practice was permissible under the House impeachment rules and
prior precedents.
Furthermore,
Gutierrez reaffirmed the principle from Francisco that the
Supreme Court’s role is limited to checking grave abuse of discretion or
violations of clear constitutional mandates in impeachment proceedings. In
Gutierrez’s case, the Court concluded there was no grave abuse: the House
respected the one-year rule by treating the complaints as one proceeding, and
it afforded the Ombudsman due process in the committee stage. Thus, the
petition was dismissed and the impeachment process was allowed to continue,
eventually resulting in the House’s approval of impeachment articles (though
Ombudsman Gutierrez resigned before the Senate trial could conclude, rendering
the case moot).
Impact
of these Cases: The Francisco
and Gutierrez rulings are now central to how impeachment rules are
understood in the Philippines. They ensure that Congress interprets the term
“initiate” in Article XI, Section 3 in a way that respects the one-year bar. In
summary, once the House formally starts an impeachment proceeding (by
referral of a complaint to the committee or by the one-third filing), that
counts as the one allowed instance for that official in a year. The House may
not entertain any new impeachment complaint against the same official until a
year has passed from that initiation. However, multiple complaints filed at
the same time are not multiple initiations – they can be jointly handled as
one impeachment case. Congress cannot skirt the one-year limit by clever timing
or rules definitions; Francisco struck down any House rule inconsistent
with the Constitution’s intent. At the same time, these decisions protect the
integrity of the impeachment process by permitting judicial intervention only
when clear constitutional boundaries (like the one-year interval, or perhaps
denial of due process) are breached, but not allowing courts to
second-guess the legislature’s ultimate judgment on the impeachment’s merits.
In
essence, the process of impeaching the Philippine Vice President is governed by
the 1987 Constitution’s Article XI framework, implemented through careful House
and Senate procedures, and refined by jurisprudence to guard against abuse. It
is a solemn process that balances accountability for high officials with
safeguards to prevent frivolous or frequent removal efforts. The Vice
President, being the second-highest official, can only be unseated through this
constitutional mechanism which involves both democratic accountability (House
impeachment by elected representatives) and a trial by the Senate. Law students
studying this process should pay close attention not only to the constitutional
text but also to how cases like Francisco and Gutierrez have
interpreted the impeachment rules – these guideposts ensure that impeachment
remains a fair, rare, and constitutionally disciplined remedy for the gravest
of offenses by our public officials.
Sources:
- 1987
Constitution of the Philippines, Article XI (Accountability of Public
Officers).
- UP
College of Law Impeachment Primer
(2025).
- Francisco
Jr. v. House of Representatives,
G.R. No. 160261 (2003).
- Gutierrez
v. House Committee on Justice,
G.R. No. 193459 (2011).
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
No comments:
Post a Comment