The Bar Tribune

I BP RAPS I MPEACHMENT
Consultation with law deans. From left photo: Dean Amado Valdez (University of the East), Dean Ernest P. Maceda (Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila), Dean
Joe-Santos B. Bisquera (Univeristy of Perpetual Help), Dean Antonio Agustin (Manuel L. Quezon University), Atty. Christian Monsod, Dean Andres Bautista (Far
Eastern University). Center: President Roan I. Libarios. Right photo: Dean Adel Tamano (Liceo de Cagayan), Justice Raoul Victorino (Philippine Christian University).
The IBP Board of Governors unanimously issued a
statement assailing the breakneck impeachment of Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona during a press conference held
at the JBL Reyes Hall on December 21, 2011.
The IBP position statement Uphold the Constitu-
tion, Promote the Rule of Law was arrived following a
two-day marathon deliberations held at its national ofce
in Ortigas, Pasig City.
During the deliberations, the IBP Board of Gov-
ernors consulted and heard out the opinions and views
of several law deans and IBP national ofcers. The nine
(9) Regional Governors, who comprise the policy making
body of the IBP, attended the marathon meetings and
shared their views, including the sentiments of their re-
spective local chapters on the issues.
The IBP further resolved to create an IBP Im-
peachment Watch to closely monitor the impeachment
trial and issue regular bulletin and updates. It also created
an IBP Impeachment Communications Group to en-
lighten the public on IBPs position on the impeachment.
January 2012
IBP Governors with National Ofcers in session on the impeachment. From left to right: Atty. Oliver B. San Antonio, Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon,
Atty. Roland B. Inting, Atty. Jose V. Cabrera, Atty. Florendo B. Opay, Atty. Roan I. Libarios, Atty. Denis B. Habawel, Atty. Israelito P. Torreon, Atty. Dominic
C. M. Solis. At the back: Atty. Manuel L. Enage, Jr., Atty. Leonor L. Gerona-Romeo, Atty. Olivia V. Jacoba and Atty. Vicente M. Joyas.
Special Edition
The Bar Tribune
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
UPHOLD THE CONSTI TUTI ON,
PROTECT THE RULE OF LAW
The IBP, through its Board of Governors, reiter-
ates its unanimous stand that the breakneck impeach-
ment of the Chief Justice by the House of Representa-
tives thwarts the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
With all due respect, the House, in exercising its
sole constitutional prerogative of impeachment, failed to
faithfully comply with the required processes prescribed
by the Constitution and its own rules on impeachment. As
a result, the impeachment complaint has become a con-
gressional faux pas in form and substance.
First: Based on public admissions, the complain-
ants signed the 57-page complaint without reading and
appreciating its contents and supporting documents,
thereby violating the Constitution itself. Under the Con-
stitution, an impeachment may only be initiated by a
verifed complaint, which means that its signatories must
form their own belief as to its truthfulness based on actual
reading and appreciation of its contents and supporting
documents. But the complaint, as shown by admissions,
was presented during a brief caucus as a done deal. No
individual copies were distributed; no discussions held.
Only a brief power point summary was dished out. The
signatories then lined up and took their turns in signing
the lone copy, without reading and evaluating the con-
tents and documents. After gathering 188 signatures in
blitz, the complaint was whizzed to the Senate without
any discussion.
Second: In instantly signing and elevating the
complaint for Senate trial without reading its contents
and subjecting it to any discussion, the complainants vi-
olated due process and their own duty to make a deter-
mination of its sufciency in form and substance and the
existence of probable cause. While 188 legislators con-
stitute more than 1/3 of the House, such number merely
dispenses with the required referral of the impeachment
complaint to the Justice Committee but NOT their sol-
emn duty to make their own determination of the suf-
ciency of the complaint and probable cause as to warrant
Senate trial. Such preliminary determination by the com-
plainants strikes at the heart of due process; it cannot be
satisfed without actual reading and appreciation, if not
discussion, of the complaint and supporting documents.
Third: The impeachment complaint also failed to
comply with the prescribed processes in verifying its due
execution. The blitzkrieg fling of the complaint shackled
the House Sec-Gen from faithfully complying with the
processes of verifcation, which would require the 188
signatories of the complaint to individually appear, raise
their right hand and declare under oath its due execution
and their own belief on the correctness of the allegations
based on reading and appreciation of the documents,
and, thereafter, afx their signatures (for the second
time) as proof of verifcation. The verifcation process of
188 declarants cannot be dispensed with or cramped in
blitz. The complaint itself does not bear the certifcate of
acknowledgement by the House Sec-Gen as proof of his
faithful compliance with the verifcation process.
But far more telling and serious are the defects
in the substance of the impeachment complaint.
First: The grounds invoked in the impeachment
complaint subvert the constitutional guarantees of
separation of powers and judicial independence, the
frst principles of the Rule of Law. The Chief Justice is im-
peached for grounds involving collegial resolutions of the
entire Court in cases elevated for review. The complaint
even includes a number of SC rulings still pending recon-
sideration, which clearly reeks of undue interference in
the disposition of pending cases. Even the other grounds
on the SALN and JDF collections also tread on collegial
practices involving assertions of judicial autonomy, which
neither the COA nor the Ombudsman has disallowed.
By indicting the Chief Justice for alleged political
bias over collegial decisions and without any allegation of
fnancial or illegal consideration involved, then the House
a full-bloodied political assembly has just elevated its
status, without rewriting the Constitution, into a higher
judicial body, a super Supreme Court, overturning judicial
decisions for alleged political bias and enforcing sanc-
tion via impeachment. Thus, on trial is not only Chief Jus-
tice Renato Corona but the constitutionally-protected
On trial is not only the Chief Justice but
the constitutionally-protected power of
judicial review, the very weapon
designed to check potential excesses or
hegemony by Congress and the President
in the exercise of their legislative and
governing powers.
STATEMENT
1
The Bar Tribune
power of judicial review, the very weapon designed to
check potential excesses or hegemony by Congress and
the President in the exercise of their legislative and gov-
erning powers.
While the President may have valid issues against
the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court, the resort to
blitzkrieg impeachment for imputed political bias
erodes, rather than strengthens, the Rule of Law. If the
Chief Justice can be validly impeached for collegial deci-
sions (including pending cases) for political bias and
hauled to the Senate to undergo the rigors of political
trial, all by a mere stroke of 1/3 signatures of the House
gathered in blitz, then the Supreme Court will never be the
same again, its judicial independence defanged, and its
magistrates including their decisions -- now at the mer-
cy of the political bidding, if not power plays, of the ruling
House majority and the President. The chilling efect and
damage to judicial independence would be like typhoon
Sendong devastating, long-term, and incalculable.
Second: The impeachment complaint also trifes
with and violates the constitutional guarantee of equal
protection of the law and due process, the frst principles
in our Bill of Rights. The complaint clearly and repeatedly
delves on collegial decisions and collegial practices of the
Supreme Court. Yet, only one of its members, who hap-
pens to be the Chief Justice, is being singled out, even if
he neither penned the assailed decisions nor changed his
position (fip-fop) on the merits of the cases. If the im-
peachment seeks to enforce public accountability over
decisions of the Court now assailed as unconstitutional,
why charge and indict only the Chief Justice and exclude
the others?
Jurisprudence proclaims that selective prosecution
smacks of persecution, which cannot be sustained with-
out thrashing the constitutional guarantees of equal ap-
plication of the law and substantive due process. If the
Chief Justice of the land can be singled out for liability
over collegial decisions and brazenly denied the constitu-
tional guarantees to equal protection of the law and due
process, what more for ordinary members of the judiciary
and citizens of the land? Has not the barefaced disregard
of well-entrenched constitutional guarantees transmog-
rifed the impeachment process from being an avatar of
public accountability into a political goblin for partisan
ends?
Thus, for the guidance of the bar and the public,
the IBP, through its Board of Governors, stands frm on
its position that the impeachment complaint runs afoul
with the Constitution in form and substance. But in de-
fning its course of action, the IBP has also resolved to re-
frain from intervening as counsel or litigant in the Senate
impeachment trial or in the certiorari proceedings before
the Supreme Court (even if it did so in the impeachment
case of then Chief Justice Hilario Davide). In refusing to
intervene as litigant or counsel in the pending proceed-
ings, the IBP is giving premium to the need to maintain its
institutional independence and integrity and avoid being
drawn into divisive political alignments.
But the IBP cannot also aford to stay in the com-
fort zones of non-involvement while the independence
of the judiciary is being torpedoed by a misguided and
defective congressional action that threatens to shake
the foundations of our democracy. As sentinel of law and
democracy, the IBP is duty bound to engage the people
and other stakeholders of the justice system to rally and
defend the judicial independence of the Supreme Court,
the bedrock of the Rule of Law.
To fulfl this duty, the Board has resolved to es-
tablish -- a) an IBP Impeachment Communications Group
manned by volunteer lawyers to inform the public on the
breakneck impeachment and its adverse impact on the
constitutional guarantees of separation of powers, judi-
cial independence and the Rule of Law; and b) an IBP Im-
peachment Watch to closely monitor the developments
on the impeachment case before the Supreme Court and
the Senate.
Finally, we call on our people and the stakehold-
ers of the justice system to pay the price of vigilance.
On trial now is not only the judicial independence of
the Supreme Court. It is our own commitment to the
supremacy of the Constitution, the Rule of Law and po-
litical democracy.
To fulfl this duty, the Board has
resolved to establish -- a) an IBP
Impeachment Communications Group
manned by volunteer lawyers to
inform the public on the breakneck
impeachment and its adverse impact on
the constitutional guarantees of
separation of powers, judicial
independence and the Rule of Law;
and b) an IBP Impeachment Watch to
closely monitor the developments on the
impeachment case before the Supreme
Court and the Senate.
STATEMENT
2
The Bar Tribune
The awesome power of Impeachment is an instru-
ment to preserve; not to destroy any of branches of gov-
ernment or their respective heads. Impeachment should
not be the subtle tool for partisan politics, personal ven-
detta or hatred. It must be exercised with extreme cau-
tion and only in extraordinary cases. As Justice Story
put it, it is exercised for the grossest ofenses against the
plain law of the land. And in the words of President Wil-
son, it is exercised when an act is committed with cor-
rupt or criminal intent. The Articles of Impeachment are
a blend of doubtful legalisms and conclusionary accusa-
tions, vengefully political in motivation and purpose.
After perusing the Complaint for Impeachment
versus Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, and the reports at-
tending the signing by the 188 Congressmenaccentu-
ated by the heroic disclosures made by Cong. Toby Tian-
gco; the dignifed and unexpected resignation of Deputy
Speaker Jesus Crispin Remulla; the courageous revela-
tions made by Cong. Jose Benjamin Benaldo that he was
overcome with fear that no Pork Barrel Allocations in the
amount of Seventy Million pesos (P70,000,000.00) would
be given to the House Members who refused to sign the
Impeachment Complain; the foul venom of political big-
otry in removing the meekly statesman Cong. Hermilan-
do Mandanas, Head of the powerful Ways and Means
Committee, for nit signing the Impeachment Complaint;
and exacerbated by the screaming silence and murmurs
of other manly and valiant Congressman who were not
tempted by the alluring inducement and temptation,
resulting in the unorthodox haste in the fling of the Im-
peachment Complaintthe Philippine Constitution Asso-
ciation (Philconsa) deplore and laments what transpired
and expresses its strong exceptions and reservations. The
chivalrous and stalwart Congressmen who refused to be
cowed into submission deserve to be included in the Pro-
fles of Courage, the book authored by President John F.
Kennedy.
Had the conscience of the House done its re-
search, it would have discovered that a Resolution to
Impeach Justice William o. Douglas of the US Supreme
Court did not materialize because the US House of Rep-
resentatives did not accept the idea that the impugned
contents of his decisions are impeachable ofense.
Dean Bacungan, Vice-Chairman of Philconsa, said:
The odd manner in which the House of Representatives
exercised its power of Impeachment is a classic example
of premeditated violation of due process of law and a de-
nial of equal protection.
Culpable violation of the Constitution and Be-
trayal of Public Trust as grounds for impeachment must
be of such gravity as to afect the welfare or existence of
the State or subvert/undermine the systems of govern-
ance or separation of powers or render the ofcer unft
for the discharge of his duties.
The Constitution never intended to lay the judici-
ary thus prostrate at the feet of the House of Representa-
tives, the slaves of their will, the victims of their caprice.
Francis Hopkinson said.
In these trying times, the fate and destiny of the
Filipino nation are at the doorstep of the Senate. It is
looked up to as the Chamber of untrammeled independ-
ence, probity, wisdom and justice.
To the Senate under the able leadership of Sen-
ate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the sovereign people lay
their trust. Will the Senate meet the peoples expecta-
tions?
May God grant the Senators the wisdom to dis-
cern what is legally right and morally correct.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION
I MPEACHMENT:
I NSTRUMENT TO PRESERVE,
NOT TO DESTROY
Te Articles of Impeachment are
a blend of doubtful legalisms
and conclusionary accusations,
vengefully political in motivation
and purpose.
Te odd manner in which the House
of Representatives exercised its power
of Impeachment is a classic example
of premeditated violation of
due process of law and a denial
of equal protection.
STATEMENT
3
The Bar Tribune
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philip-
pines has clearly defned the powers of the three co-equal
branches of government, and the power to interpret and
apply the law is vested in one Supreme Court and such
other courts as may be created by law.
The Supreme Court, as with the appellate and trial
courts, is peopled by men and women who have chosen
public service as their mission and who have sworn to
uphold the public trust. In their judicial actions, they are
the vanguards of right and the nemesis of injustice. For
the same actions, they answer directly to the citizenry
through the institutional mechanisms and modes of relief
that are accessible to all.
Public perception of judicial independence and
efciency is inextricably linked with the stability of any
country's economic development. A weak judicial system
equates to lack of confdence that commercial obliga-
tions will be honoured and much-needed capital invest-
ments will be protected. A nation's rule of law regime is
only as strong or as weak as its judiciary.
Although members of the bench are public fgures
who must accept that they are legitimate objects of pub-
lic commentary and critique, there is a limitation even to
the fundamental right of speech.
The current continued negative depiction of the
Supreme Court, the Chief Justice and the Associate Jus-
tices is a matter of grave national concern. The power to
impeach is one of the necessary checks that ensures the
balance among the three branches of our national gov-
ernment. Wielded arbitrarily and oppressively, this power
can and will destroy the Judiciary, the traditional bulwark
of the rule of law. The impeachment complaint against
the Chief Justice sends a chilling message to the entire ju-
diciary: toe the line or else.
Poor public trust in a maligned judiciary is not per-
petuated through the out-of-court challenges to the Su-
preme Court's powers and actions and the interest-driven
focus on personalities, rather than on issues. People who
are not schooled in the law and who necessarily do not
understand the intricate legal disputes, are carried away
by public denouncements of the alleged irregularities
in the decisions of the High Court which, under our civil
law, are part of the law of our land as binding precedents.
The end result is a distrust in the Judiciary. When people
can no longer rely on the judicial institution for redress of
grievances, they will take the law into their own hands.
Anarchy and chaos will then reign.
THE JUDGES OF THE PHILIPPINES THUS RAISE
THEIR UNIFIED VOICE AND ASK THE TWO OTHER
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, THE EXECUTIVE AND
THE LEGISLATIVE, TO ALLOW THE JUDICIARY TO
PERFORM ITS CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE WITH
INDEPENDENCE, WITHOUT FEAR OF INFLUENCE,
PRESSURE, OR INTERFERENCE, AS THEIR OATH RE-
QUIRES. WE ASK THAT OUR JUDICIAL ACTIONS BE
GIVEN THE RESPECT AND REGARD, TO WHICH THEY
ARE ENTITLED TO UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. WE
EXPRESS UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT FOR THE SU-
PREME COURT AS THE INVIOLABLE INSTITUTION
THAT IS THE EMBODIMENT OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS
AND INTEGRITY, AND FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE AS
THE LEADER OF THIS INSTITUTION.
PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION
METROPOLITAN AND CITY JUDGES ASSOCIATION
OF THE PHILIPPINES
PHILIPPINE TRIAL JUDGES LEAGUE
DECLARATI ON
Te power to impeach is one of the nec-
essary checks that ensures the balance
among the three branches of our nation-
al government. Wielded arbitrarily and
oppressively, this power can and will
destroy the Judiciary, the traditional
bulwark of the rule of law. Te impeach-
ment complaint against the Chief Justice
sends a chilling message to the entire
judiciary: toe the line or else.
STATEMENT
4
The Bar Tribune
The ATENEO LAW ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, INC.
recognizes that the Independence of the Judiciary is at
the core of the Rule of Law. Any attempt by forces out-
side the Judiciary which can have the efect of undermin-
ing judicial independence is a derogation of the Rule of
Law and a violation of Universal Human Rights.
It is the duty of the courts to remain impartial.
Hence, they must be able to act without fear of retalia-
tion from external pressures.
The voice of the People is embodied in the Consti-
tution; it is the very same voice that calls for democracy
and order free from the dictates of any person or group
of persons. In a democratic system, the three branches
of government have their own separate functions, pow-
ers, and jurisdictions. It is not for the other branches of
government to determine what the decisions of the Court
must be. Just as it is not for the Court to directly inter-
fere in the processes of the other co-equal branches of
government. The Separation of Powers embodied in our
Constitution must be preserved and left unswayed by the
agenda or whims of any individual or group. The Separa-
tion of Powers must prevail and be respected, and not
tramped upon by those granted the trust and mandate of
the People.
We recognize that it is within the power of the po-
litical departments to impeach individual members of the
Supreme Court. We also uphold the right to disagree with
ATENEO LAW ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, INC.
STATEMENT I N SUPPORT OF THE
I NDEPENDENCE OF THE J UDI CI ARY
The Philippine Bar Association has always stood
by its guiding principle the Rule of Law.
The public exchange between co-equal branches
of government may be discounted as part and parcel of a
vibrant if at times raucous democracy. Nonetheless, it
is unfortunate that this had come to pass. Yet, at the end
of the day, the Constitution provides mechanisms for the
resolution of these disputes under the Rule of Law.
On this premise, the PBA views the impeachment
proceedings commenced against Chief Justice Renato
Corona as the constitutionally ordained process which
epitomizes the Rule of Law at work. It will allow the issues
PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT ON THE I MPEACHMENT
OF CHI EF J USTI CE CORONA
collegial decisions of the Court. But we see the impeach-
ing of the individual member of the Court for his partici-
pation in the collegial decision of the Court as a challenge
to the authority of the Court itself to make decisions as a
body. We see this as a serious threat to the Separation of
Powers.
We recall the statement by a Supreme Court ap-
pointee of President Corazon C. Aquino: "The Justices
have no constituency, serve no majority or minority, but
serve only the public interest as they see it in accordance
with their oath of ofce, guided only by the Constitution
and their own conscience and sacred honor." [Pedro L.
Yap, Supreme Court of the Philippines, A Court Under
Siege, Address at the 97th Anniversary of the Philippine
Bar Association (June 24, 1988), in 161 SCRA xxvi (1988)]
The independence of the Judiciary is the very
foundation of the Rule of Law. Destroy it and our People
will have nowhere to seek redress and justice.
to be properly ventilated in a sober and orderly proceed-
ing where guilt or innocence is weighed and determined
on their true merit and not on the basis of an open com-
petition to win public opinion.
Chief Justice Corona is entitled to defend himself
in the appropriate forum where he must be accorded the
respect due his high ofce. Let all accusations be venti-
lated and heard in this constitutional process and let it not
be undermined by any quarter.
In keeping with its cherished traditions, the PBA
will remain vigilant in ensuring that the Rule of Law will
prevail over those who would seek to undermine it.
Te Separation of Powers must prevail and
be respected, and not tramped upon.
We see the impeachment (based on) collegial
decisions as a challenge to the authority of the
Court itself to make decisions as a body.
We see this as a serious threat to the
Separation of Powers.
STATEMENT
5
The Bar Tribune
The NUPL believes that an independent, impartial
and credible judiciary most especially a Supreme Court
which is generally considered to be the last bastion of
democracy is an imperative in a free and just society.
As a nationwide voluntary association of hundreds
of human rights lawyers in 15 regional bodies and provin-
cial chapters practicing in all levels of our courts, as well as
law students and paralegals, the NUPL reafrms its stand
that a Supreme Court must not be beholden or partisan
to any appointing authority or administration, past and
present. And this is even made more imperative in the
context of the human rights situation and the peoples in-
terests and demands.
The NUPL believes that the impeachment process
is an important tool in the democratic process of mak-
ing high public ofcials, including any member of the Su-
preme Court, when warranted, accountable. It serves as a
deterrent against grave abuse of authority and betrayal
of public trust, and is an avenue not only for accountabil-
ity but also for instituting necessary reforms in the admin-
istration of justice.
After an initial assessment of the facts, circum-
stances and current turn of events, the NUPL notes that
the impeachment complaint against the incumbent Chief
Justice contains on its face some serious allegations and
grounds, both old and new, that need to be tried and re-
solved objectively and in an impassioned manner in the
proper venues and not with colourful rhetoric from any
corner of the ring.
The NUPL itself, either as a party or observer,
concurred in views that took exception to the midnight
appointment of the present Chief Justice, the status quo
ante order on the impeachment of former Ombudsman
Merceditas Gutierrez, and the TRO against the watch list
order on former President Gloria Arroyo. The appropriate
venue and procedure was utilized as ofcers of the court
who share the belief that any criticism of the Court must
be principled and based on sufcient legal arguments and
just grounds. Such dissent must also contribute to the
strengthening of the independence of the judiciary and
the restoration or assurance of the peoples trust and con-
fdence in the equal and equitable dispensation of justice.
Whatever real or ostensible motivation there may
be, and even if it the current situation is said to be anoth-
er intramural in our government, with the impeachment
complaint having already been fled and transmitted, the
impeachment process must proceed according to the
Constitution. It is now incumbent on the House prosecu-
tors to prove any of these grounds convincingly and for
the Senate as an impeachment court to evaluate them
with judiciousness, unbridled by any other consideration.
The Chief Justice must have his day in court too.
We furthermore believe that the impeachment
process, even if ultimately a political exercise in a legal
forum, must not be reduced to a simple numbers game.
It should also not cover up the incompetence and failure
of the present Pnoy administration itself to concretely
address the gut issues of the people including their basic
social and economic needs and the largely unheeded de-
mand for justice and accountability for grievous human
rights violations.
And certainly it should not be a smokescreen for
the perceived vindictiveness for the latest Supreme Court
decision on the Hacienda Luisita case. It should not be
impelled by any unnecessarily arrogant nor roguish tirade
on the other institutions and its personages while riding
on transitory popularity ratings. And fnally, it should not
be used to exploit the situation to monopolize power,
blur the separation of powers and erode the principle and
mechanism of checks and balances.
At the end of the road, one thing is of transcen-
dental importance above all these, i.e. whether our for-
mal democratic institutions can efectively and credibly
render justice to the people by making our highest public
ofcials truly accountable for their actions. Whatever the
outcome of the impeachment process, the basic political
and civil rights and the social and economic demands and
needs of the people remain and must be genuinely ad-
dressed.
NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES LAWYERS
RI GHTS LAWYERS: AN I NDEPENDENT AND
I MPARTI AL J UDI CI ARY I S AN I MPERATI VE
... the impeachment process, even if
ultimately a political exercise in a legal
forum, must not be reduced to a simple
numbers game.
STATEMENT
6
The Bar Tribune
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Fifteenth Congress
First Regular Session
RESOLUTION NO. 39
RESOLUTI ON ADOPTI NG THE RULES OF
PROCEDURE ON I MPEACHMENT TRI ALS
Resolved by the Senate, To adopt, as it hereby
adopts, the following:
RULES OF PROCEDURE ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
I. When the Senate receives articles of impeach-
ment pursuant to Article XI, Sections 2 and 3of the Consti-
tution, the President of the Senate shall inform the House
of Representatives that the Senate shall take proper or-
der on the subject of impeachment and shall be ready to
receive the prosecutors on such time and date as the Sen-
ate may specify.
II. When the President of the Philippines is on trial,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside but
shall not vote. Notice shall be given to him by the Presi-
dent of the Senate of the time and place fxed for the con-
sideration of the articles of impeachment, with a request
to attend. The Chief Justice shall be administered the
oath or afrmation, prescribed under these Rules, by the
President of the Senate and shall preside over the Senate
during the consideration of said articles and upon the trial
of the person impeached.
The President of the Senate shall preside in all
other cases of impeachment and, for that purpose, placed
under the prescribed oath or afrmation by any person
authorized by law to administer an oath.
III. Before proceeding to the consideration of the
articles of impeachment, the Presiding Ofcer shall ad-
minister the prescribed oath or afrmation to the Mem-
bers of the Senate then present and to the other Mem-
bers of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall
be to take the same.
Upon presentation of the articles to the Senate,
the Senate shall specify the date and time for the consid-
eration of such articles. Unless the Senate provides other-
wise, it shall continue in session from day to day (except
Saturdays, Sundays, and nonworking holidays) until fnal
judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may,
in its judgment, be necessary.
Senators shall observe political neutrality during
the course of the impeachment trial. Political neutrality
shall be defned as exercise of public ofcials duty with-
out unfair discrimination and regardless of party aflia-
tion or preference.
IV. The Presiding Ofcer shall have the power to
make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Sen-
ate, all orders, mandates, and writs authorized by these
Rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such
other regulations and orders in the premises as the Sen-
ate may authorize or provide.
V. The Senate shall have power to compel the at-
tendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders,
mandates, writs, and judgments, to preserve order, and
to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobe-
dience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, or judg-
ments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regula-
tions which it may deem essential or conducive to the
ends of justice. And the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate,
under the direction of the President of the Senate, may
employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to
enforce, execute, and carry into efect the lawful orders,
mandates, and writs of the Senate.
VI. The President of the Senate or the Chief Jus-
tice when presiding on the trial may rule on all questions
of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of
materiality, relevancy, competency or admissibility of ev-
idence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand
as the judgment of the Senate, unless a Member of the
Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in
which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for deci-
sion after one contrary view is expressed; or the Presiding
Ofcer may at his/her option, in the frst instance, sub-
mit any such question to a vote of the Members of the
Senate. The motion for a vote and the contrary opinion
shall not take more than two (2) minutes each, with a one
minute rebuttal allowed for the proponent of the motion.
The provisions of the Rules of the Senate and the revised
Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily whenever applica-
7
The Bar Tribune
ble.
VII. Upon the presentation of articles of impeach-
ment and the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore
provided, a writ of summons shall be issued to the person
impeached, reciting or incorporating said articles, and
notifying him/her to appear before the Senate upon a day
and at a place to be fxed by the Senate and named in such
writ, and to fle his/her Answer to said articles of impeach-
ment within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from
receipt thereof; to which the prosecutors may Reply with-
in a non-extendible period of fve (5) days therefrom; and
to stand to and abide by the orders and judgments of the
Senate.
Such writ shall be served by such ofcer or person
named in the order thereof, not later than three (3) days
prior to the day fxed for such appearance of the person
impeached, either by the delivery of an attested copy
thereof to the person impeached, or if personal service
cannot be done, service of the writ may be made by leav-
ing a copy with a person of sufcient age and discretion
at his/her last known address or at his/her ofce or place
of business; and if the service of such writ shall fail the
proceedings shall not thereby abate, but further service
may be made in such manner as the Senate shall direct. If
the person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear,
either in person or by counsel, on the day so fxed or, ap-
pearing, shall fail to fle his answer to such articles of im-
peachment, the trial shall proceed nevertheless as upon a
plea of not guilty. If a plea of guilty shall be entered, judg-
ment may be entered thereon without further proceed-
ings.
VIII. At the date and time designated by the Sen-
ate for the return of the summons against the person
impeached, the Secretary of the Senate shall administer
the following oath or afrmation to the returning ofcer:
I, __________________, do solemnly swear (or afrm)
that the return made by me upon the process issued on
the _______ day of ______________, by the Senate of
the Philippines, against ________ __________ was truly
made, and that I have performed such service as therein
described: (So help me God). Which oath or afrmation
shall be entered at large on the records.
IX. The person impeached shall then be called to
appear and answer the articles of impeachment against
him/her. If he/she appears, or any person for him/her, the
appearance shall be recorded, stating particularly if by
himself/herself, or by agent or counsel, naming the per-
son appearing and the capacity in which he/she appears.
If he/she does not appear, either personally or by agent or
counsel, the same shall be recorded.
X. At 2 oclock in the afternoon, or at such other
hour as the Senate may order, of the day appointed for
the trial of an impeachment, the legislative business of
the Senate, if there be any, shall be suspended, and the
Secretary of the Senate shall give notice to the House of
Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed upon
the impeachment trial of ________ _________, in the
Senate Chamber.
XI. Unless otherwise fxed by the Senate, the hour
of the day at which the Senate shall sit upon the trial of
an impeachment shall be 2 oclock in the afternoon; and
when the hour shall arrive, the Presiding Ofcer upon
such trial shall cause proclamation to be made, and the
business of the trial shall proceed. The adjournment of
the Senate sitting in said trial shall not operate as an ad-
journment of the Senate as a legislative body.
XII. The Secretary of the Senate shall record the
proceedings in cases of impeachment as in the case of
legislative proceedings, and the same shall be reported
in the same manner as the legislative proceedings of the
Senate.
XIII. Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to
appear and be heard upon an impeachment: Provided,
That counsel for the prosecutors shall be under the con-
trol and supervision of the panel of prosecutors of the
House of Representatives.
XIV. All motions, objections, requests, or applica-
tions whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or
relating immediately to the trial (including questions with
respect to admission of evidence or other questions aris-
ing during the trial) made by the parties or their counsel
shall be addressed to the Presiding Ofcer only, and if he,
or any Senator, shall require it, they shall be committed to
writing, and read at the Secretarys table.
XV. Witnesses shall be examined by one person
on behalf of the party producing them, and then cross-
examined by one person on the other side.
XVI. If a Senator is called as a witness, he/she shall
be sworn, and give his/her testimony standing in his/her
place.
XVII. If a Senator wishes to put a question to a wit-
ness, he/she shall do so within two (2) minutes. A Senator
may likewise put a question to a prosecutor or counsel.
He/she may also ofer a motion or order, in writing, which
shall be submitted to the Presiding Ofcer.
XVIII. At all times while the Senate is sitting upon
the trial of an impeachment the doors of the Senate shall
be open to the public. Silence shall be observed by the vis-
itors at all times, on pain of eviction from the trial venue.
The Presiding Ofcer and the Members of the
Senate shall refrain from making any comments and dis-
closures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending
impeachment trial.
The same shall likewise apply to the prosecutors,
to the person impeached, and to their respective counsel
and witnesses.
8
The Bar Tribune
XIX. All preliminary or interlocutory questions,
and all motions, shall be argued for not exceeding one
hour on each side, unless the Senate otherwise orders.
XX. The case, on each side, shall be opened by one
person. The fnal argument on the merits may be made by
two (2) persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered
by the Senate upon application for that purpose), and the
argument shall be opened and closed on the part of the
House of Representatives.
XXI. The trial of all the articles of impeachment
shall be completed before the Senators vote on the f-
nal question on whether or not the impeachment is sus-
tained. On the fnal question whether the impeachment
is sustained, the vote shall be taken on each article of
impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall
not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by
the votes of two-thirds of all the Members, a judgment of
acquittal shall be entered; but if the person impeached in
such articles of impeachment shall be convicted upon any
of said articles by the votes of two-thirds of all the Mem-
bers, the Senate shall proceed to pronounce judgment of
conviction, and a certifed copy of such judgment shall be
deposited in the Ofce of the Secretary of the Senate. A
motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of im-
peachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.
Form of putting the question on each article of
impeachment.
The Presiding Ofcer shall frst state the question.
Thereafter, each Senator, as his/her name is called, shall
rise in his/her place and answer: guilty or not guilty. The
vote of the President of the Senate on each article of im-
peachment, when acting as the presiding ofcer, shall be
last taken after all the Senators have stated their votes. If
he/she so wishes, a Senator may explain his/her vote for
not more than two (2) minutes.
XXII. All the orders and decisions may be acted
upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the or-
ders and decisions shall be voted on without debate by
yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record, sub-
ject, however, to the operation of Rule VI, and in that case
no Member shall speak more than once on one question,
and for not more than ten (10) minutes on an interlocu-
tory question, and for not more than ffteen (15) minutes
on the fnal question, unless by consent of the Senate, to
be had without debate; but a motion to adjourn may be
decided without the yeas and nays, unless they be de-
manded by one-ffth of the Members present. The ffteen
minutes herein allowed shall be for the whole delibera-
tion on the fnal question, and not on the fnal question on
each article of impeachment.
XXIII. Witnesses shall be sworn in the following
form: You _______________, do swear (or afrm, as
the case may be) that the evidence you shall give in the
case now pending between the Philippines and ________
_________, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth: (so help you God).
Which oath or afrmation shall be administered
by the Secretary of the Senate, or any other duly author-
ized person.
Form of a subpoena to be issued on the applica-
tion of the prosecutors of the impeachment, or of the
party impeached, or of his/her counsel.
To ________ __________,
Greetings:
You are hereby commanded to appear be-
fore the Senate of the Philippines, on the _______
day of ___________, at the Senate Chamber in
____________________, then and there to testify your
knowledge in the case which is before the Senate in
which the House of Representatives has impeached
___________, and to bring with you the following
___________, it being necessary to use the same as testi-
mony.
Fail not.
Witness _______ ________, and Presiding Of-
fcer of the said Senate at ______________, Philip-
pines, this ___ day of _______, in the year of our Lord
___________________.
Presiding Ofcer of the Senate
Form of direction for the service of said subpoe-
na.
The Senate of the Philippines )
To ________ __________,
Greetings:
You are hereby commanded to serve and re-
turn the within subpoena according to law. Dated at
___________, this ______ day of ______, in the year of our
Lord ______________.
Secretary of the Senate
Form of oath to be administered to the Members
9
The Bar Tribune
of the Senate and the Presiding Ofcer sitting in the trial
of impeachments.
I solemnly swear (or afrm, as the case may be)
that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeach-
ment of ______ ______, now pending, I will do impartial
justice according to the Constitution and laws of the Phil-
ippines: (So help me God).
Form of summons to be issued and served upon
the person impeached.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) S.S.
The Senate of the Philippines )
To ________ __________,
Greetings:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the
Philippines did, on the ____ day of ________, present to
the Senate articles of impeachment against you, the said
______ ______, in the words following:
[Here insert the articles]
And demand that you, the said ________
________, should be put to answer the accusations as set
forth in said articles, and that such proceedings, examina-
tions, trials, and judgments might be thereupon had as
are agreeable to law and justice.
You, the said ________ ________, are therefore
hereby summoned to be and appear before the Senate
of the Philippines, at their Chamber in _______________,
on the ____ day of __________________, at ____ oclock
____, then and there to answer to the said articles of im-
peachment, and then and there to abide by, obey, and
perform such orders, directions, and judgments as the
Senate of the Philippines shall make in the premises ac-
cording to the Constitution and laws of the Philippines.
Hereof you are not to fail.
Witness _______ ________, and Presiding Of-
fcer of the said Senate at _______________, Philip-
pines, this ___ day of _______, in the year of our Lord
___________________.
Presiding Ofcer of the Senate
Form of Order to be indorsed on said writ of sum-
mons.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) S.S.
The Senate of the Philippines )
To ________ __________,
Greetings:
You are hereby commanded to deliver to and
leave with ________ __________, if conveniently to be
found, or if not, to leave at his usual place of abode, or
at his usual place of business in some conspicuous place,
a true and attested copy of the within writ of summons,
together with a like copy of this order; and in whichsoever
way you perform the service, let it be done at least ____
days before the appearance day mentioned in the said
writ of summons.
Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons
and order, with your proceedings thereon endorsed, on or
before the appearance day mentioned in the said writ of
summons.
Witness _______ ________, and Presiding Ofcer
of the said Senate at _______________, this ___ day of
_______, in the year of our Lord ___________________.
Presiding Ofcer of the Senate
All process shall be served by the Sergeant-at-
Arms of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered by the Sen-
ate.
XXIV. If the Senate shall, at any time, fail to sit for
the consideration of articles of impeachment on the day
or hour fxed therefor, the Senate may, by an order to be
adopted without debate, fx a day and hour for resuming
such consideration.
XXV. These Rules shall take efect immediately
upon publication in two (2) newspapers of general circula-
tion and shall remain in force until amended or repealed.
A copy of these Rules shall be posted on the ofcial web-
site of the Senate of the Philippines.
Adopted,
JUAN PONCE ENRILE
President of the Senate

This Resolution was adopted by the Senate on
March 23, 2011.
EMMA LIRIO-REYES
Secretary of the Senate
10
The Bar Tribune
1. What should the Senate do upon receipt of articles of
impeachment?
Upon receipt of articles of impeachment:
a) The Senate shall specify the date and time for
the consideration of such articles.
b) The Senate President shall inform the House
that the Senate shall take proper order on the subject of
impeachment and shall be ready to receive the prosecu-
tors on such time and date as the Senate may specify.
c) If it is the Chief Justice that shall preside, notice
shall be given to him by the Senate President of the time
and place fxed for the consideration of the articles of im-
peachment, with a request to attend.
d) The Senate shall organize itself as an Impeach-
ment Court.
2. How does the Senate Organize itself into an Im-
peachment Court?
Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of
impeachment:
The Presiding Ofcer shall be administered the prescribed
oath or afrmation.
The Presiding Ofcer shall administer the prescribed oath
or afrmation to the Members of the Senate then present
and to the other Members of the Senate as they shall ap-
pear, whose duty it is to take the same.
3. What happens after the organization of the Senate?
A writ of summons shall be issued to the person im-
peached, reciting or incorporating said articles, and noti-
fying him/her to appear before the Senate upon a day and
at a place to be fxed by the Senate and named in such
writ, and to fle his/her Answer to said articles of impeach-
ment within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from
receipt thereof; to which the prosecutors may Reply with-
in a non-extendible period of fve (5) days there from and
to stand and abide by the orders and judgments of the
Senate.
4. How should the writ of summons be served?
The writ shall be served by personal service. The writ of
summons shall be served by such ofcer or person named
in the order thereof, not later than three (3) days prior
to the day fxed for such appearance of the person im-
peached, by delivery of an attested copy thereof to the
person impeached.
5. If personal service cannot be done, what other mode
of service may be availed?
Service may be made by leaving a copy of the writ of sum-
mons with a person of sufcient age and discretion at his/
her last known address or at his/her ofce or place of busi-
ness.[9]
6. If service of the writ of summons fails, shall the pro-
ceedings abate?
No. Further service may be made in such manner as the
Senate shall direct.
7. Shall the impeachment trial proceed even if the per-
son impeached fails to appear before the Senate or fails
to fle his/her answer to the articles of impeachment?
Yes, the trial shall proceed nonetheless as upon a plea of
not guilty if, after service, the person impeached shall fail
to appear, either in person or by counsel, on the day so
fxed or though appearing, shall fail to fle his/her Answer
to such articles of impeachment.
8. If a plea of guilty is entered, shall trial nevertheless
proceed?
No. If a plea of guilty shall be entered, judgment may be
entered thereon without further proceedings.
A PRI MER ON THE NEW RULES OF
PROCEDURE GOVERNI NG I MPEACHMENT
TRI ALS I N THE SENATE OF THE PHI LI PPI NES
By: ATTY. AMADO F. MARALIT, LLM, MPA, CEO VI
Senate Parliamentary Counselor
11
The Bar Tribune
9. What shall the Secretary do upon the date and time
designated by the Senate for the return of summons
against the person impeached?
The Senate Secretary shall administer the oath or afr-
mation contemplated under the Rules to the returning of-
fcer. This oath or afrmation shall be entered at large on
the records.
10. What is the duty of the Secretary upon the hour of
the day appointed by the Senate for the trial of an im-
peachment case?
The Senate Secretary shall give notice to the House of
Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed upon
the trial of the person impeached in the Senate Chamber.
11. What is the duty of the Senate President upon the
hour of the day appointed by the Senate for the trial of
an impeachment case?
The Presiding Ofcer shall cause the proclamation to be
made that the business of the trial shall proceed.
12. What powers may the Presiding Ofcer exercise?
a) The power to make and issue, by himself or by the Sen-
ate Secretary, all orders, mandates, and writs authorized
by these Rules or by the Senate; and
b) The power to make and enforce such other regulations
and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize
to provide.
13. How long will the impeachment trial last?
Unless the Senate provides otherwise, it shall continue
in session from day to day (except Saturdays, Sundays,
and nonworking holidays) until fnal judgment shall be
rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be
necessary.
14. Should the Senators observe political neutrality?
Yes, during the course of the impeachment trial. Political
Neutrality shall be defned as the exercise of a public of-
fcials duty without unfair discrimination and regardless
of party afliation.
15. How shall the proceedings of the impeachment
court be recorded and reported?
The Senate Secretary shall record the proceedings in cas-
es of impeachment as in the case of legislative proceed-
ings, and the same shall be reported in the same manner
as the legislative proceedings of the Senate.
16. Are the parties on either side entitled to counsel?
Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and
be heard upon an impeachment: Provided that counsel
for the prosecutors shall be under the control and super-
vision of the panel of prosecutors of the House of Repre-
sentatives.
17. To whom shall all motions, objections, requests or
applications be addressed?
All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether
relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating imme-
diately to the trial (including questions with respect to ad-
mission of evidence or other questions arising during the
trial) shall be addressed to the Presiding Ofcer only.
18. Is it necessary that all the motions, objections, re-
quests or applications mentioned above be in writing?
As a general rule these are not required to be in writing.
But if the Presiding ofcer or any Senator shall require it,
these shall be committed to writing, and read at the Sec-
retarys table.
19. May the Senate compel the attendance of witness-
es?
Yes.
20. How shall witnesses be examined and cross-exam-
ined?
Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of
the party producing them, and then cross-examined by
one person on the other side.
21. May a Senator be called as a witness?
Yes. If a Senator is called as a witness, he/she shall be
sworn, and give his/her testimony standing in his/her
place.
22. If a Senator wishes to put a question to a witness
how long may he do so?
The Senator shall put a question to the witness within two
minutes. He/She may also ofer a motion or order in writ-
ing which shall be submitted to the Presiding Ofcer.
12
The Bar Tribune
23. May a Senator put a question to a prosecutor or
counsel?
Yes. He/She may also ofer a motion or order in writing
which shall be submitted to the Presiding Ofcer.
24. Is the impeachment trial open to the public?
At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial of an
impeachment, the doors of the Senate shall be open to
the public. Silence shall be observed by the visitors at all
times, on pain of eviction from the trial venue.
25. May the Presiding ofcer and the Senators make
any comments and disclosures in public about the mer-
its of the trial?
They shall refrain from making any comments and disclo-
sures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending im-
peachment trial.
26. Does the above rule also apply to prosecutors, to
the person impeached and to their respective counsel
and witnesses?
Yes, they shall also refrain from making any comments
and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a
pending impeachment trial.
27. How long may preliminary or interlocutory ques-
tions, and motions be argued?
They may be argued for not exceeding one (1) hour on
each side, unless the Senate orders otherwise.
28. How many persons may open the case on each side?
Only one on each side may open the case.
29. How many persons on each side may make the fnal
argument on the merits?
The fnal argument on the merits may be made by two
(2) persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered by the
Senate upon application for that purpose), and the argu-
ment shall be opened and closed on the part of the House
of Representatives.
30. When should Senators vote on the fnal question
(on whether or not the impeachment is sustained)?
The Senators vote on the fnal question after the trial of all
the articles of impeachment shall have been completed.
31. How shall the vote on the fnal question be taken?
The vote shall be taken on each article of impeachment
separately.
32. When shall a judgment of acquittal be entered?
Judgment of acquittal shall be entered if the impeach-
ment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sus-
tained by the votes of two-thirds of all the Members.
33. When should the Senate proceed to pronounce
judgment of conviction?
The Senate shall do so if the person impeached shall be
convicted upon any of the articles of impeachment by the
vote of two-thirds of all the Members. A certifed copy of
such judgment shall be deposited in the Ofce of the Sec-
retary.
34. Is a motion for reconsideration of the vote of judg-
ment for acquittal or conviction in order?
A motion to reconsider the vote by which an article of im-
peachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.
35. What procedure is to be followed when there is an
objection to any order or decision of the Senate?
All orders and decisions may be acted upon without ob-
jection. If objection is heard, the orders or decisions shall
be voted on without debate by yeas and nays, which shall
be entered on the record, subject however, to the opera-
tion of Rule VI. In that case, no Senator shall speak for
more than once on one question, and not for more than
ten (10) minutes on an interlocutory question, and for not
more than ffteen (15) minutes on the fnal question, un-
less by consent of the Senate, to be had without debate.
A motion to adjourn may be decided without the yeas
and nays, unless they be demanded by one-ffth (1/5) of
the Senators present. The ffteen minutes herein allowed
shall be for the whole deliberation on the fnal question,
and not on the fnal question on each article of impeach-
ment.
36. May the Senate enforce obedience to its orders,
mandates, writs and judgments?
Yes.
13
The Bar Tribune
37. May the Senate punish for contempt?
The Senate shall have the power to punish in a summary
way contempt of, and disobedience to, its authority, or-
ders, mandate, writs, or judgments.
38. Does the Senate have the power to make orders,
rules, and regulations?
Yes, it was the power to make such lawful orders, rules,
and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive
to the ends of justice.
39. Is the Sergeant at Arms allowed to employ aid and
assistance for the enforcement and execution of the
lawful orders, mandates, and writs of the Senate?
Yes. He may do so under the direction of the Senate Presi-
dent.
40. What type of questions may the Senate President
or Chief Justice, when presiding on the trial, rule on?
Either may rule on all questions of evidence including, but
not limited to, questions of materiality, relevancy, com-
petency or admissibility of evidence and incidental ques-
tions.
41. Shall the ruling of the Senate President or Chief jus-
tice on the aforesaid questions stand as the ruling of
the Senate?
Yes, unless a Senator shall ask that a formal vote be taken
thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate
for decision after one contrary view is expressed.
42. May the Presiding Ofcer in the frst instance throw
the question to the Senate?
Yes, he/she may submit any such question to a vote of the
Senators.
43. For how long may the motion for a vote on the
question and a contrary opinion take?
Said motion and the contrary opinion shall take not more
than two (2) minutes each, with a one-minute rebuttal al-
lowed for the proponent of the motion.
44. Will the Rules of Court and the Rules of the Senate
fnd application in the impeachment trial?
The provisions of the Rules of the Senate and the Rules
of Court shall apply in a suppletory manner whenever ap-
plicable.
45. How is the question put on each article of impeach-
ment?
The Presiding Ofcer shall frst state the question. There-
after, each Senator, as his/her name is called, shall rise in
his/her place and answer: guilty or not guilty.
46. When does the Presiding Ofcer vote?
The vote of the President of the Senate on each article of
impeachment, when acting as the presiding ofcer, shall
be last taken after all the Senators have stated their votes.
47. May a Senator explain his/her vote?
Yes if he/she so wishes, for not more than two (2) minutes.
48. Who shall serve all process?
All process shall be served by the Sergeant at Arms of the
Senate, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.
49. May the Senate enforce obedience to its orders,
mandates, writs and judgments?
Yes.
50. If the Impeachment Court fails to sit on the hour
fxed for the consideration of the articles of impeach-
ment what may the Senate do?
The Senate may by an order to be adopted without de-
bate, fx a day and hour for resuming consideration.
51. Has the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials
been published?
Yes, in the 26 March 2011 of the Manila Bulletin (p.9) and
the Manila Times (p.A7).
SENATOR-J UDGE
SOLEMN OATH OF OFFI CE
I __________ solemnly swear that in all things
appertaining to the trial of impeachment of Supreme
Court Chief Justice Renato Corona now pending, I will
do impartial justice according to the Constitution and
the laws of the Philippines. So help me God.
14
The Bar Tribune
Sec. 1 ART. 8 of the Constitution
explicitly vests the judicial power in the
Supreme Court and such lower court as
may be established by law. It proceeds to
defne the judicial power as the power to
settle controversies involving rights that
are legally enforceable. The implication is
obvious: For good or ill, the Constitution
has seen ft to lodge the power to settle
justiciable controversies in the courts and
courts alone, not because they are infal-
lible, but because somewhere down the
line, there must be an authority that must
say what the law is. We may disagree with
the ruling of a court, but must never defy
it. Any other scheme will result in making
the law a matter of personal opinion and
cause more harm than good.
The second President Aquino and
his allies in the House of Representatives
seek to undo this great principle. The hard
evidence for this is nothing less than the
articles of impeachment they have sent
to the Senate against Chief Justice Re-
nato Corona. They are openely reviewing
the acts of the Chief Justice and his court
in several cases which are not their liking,
assuming as power that is not theirs un-
der the Constitution. Even at the height
of its unpopularity in the 1930s, the pow-
er and authority of the US Supreme Court
was never unsurped in this way. Are not
the proponents of impeachment them-
selves committing a culpable violation of
the Constitution?
A president who can have a chief
justice impeached because the decisions
of the court are adverse to his interests
will ultimately hold the entire Judiciary
hostage to his wishes. The high feelings
of the moment doubtless will be satis-
fed, Justice Frank Murphy said in his dis-
senting opinion in re Yamashita 327 US 1.
But in the sober afterglow will come the
realization of the boundless and danger-
ous implications of the procedure sanc-
tioned today.
Lifted from Philippine Daily Inquirer
January 13, 2012
SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO
HAVE THE FI NAL SAY
By: MARIO GUARINA III
retired Court of Appeals Justice
I BP: I N DEED & I N CREED
IBP Governors and Ofcers hold a press conference to announce its position.
IBP called for a press briefng on the impeachment.
IBP Statement on the Senate Trial
As the impeachment proceedings of Chief Justice Corona unfold
at the Senate, the IBP expresses its prayerful hope for a fair trial and
credible outcome.
There is no dispute that impeachment is both a political and con-
stitutional process. It is political because it is undertaken by the political
branches of government. It is constitutional because it is a mechanism
for public accountability as enshrined in the Constitution itself. As such,
it must adhere to the constitutional guarantees of due process and
equal protection of the law to ensure a fair trial and credible outcome.
Political partisanship and considerations have no place in the
impeachment trial. The Senates own Rules on Impeachment clearly
spell this out.-- As an impeachment court, the Senator-judges should
observe political neutrality, or without regard to party afliation or
preference. Even more emphatic is the solemn oath taken by the Sena-
tor-judges in hearing the case of Chief Justice Corona-- to do impartial
justice according to the Constitution and the law of the Philippines.
And an impartial justice can only be based on facts and evidence and
not on personal sentiments or swings of public opinion.
As sentinel of law and democracy, the IBP assures our people
that it will keep vigil in this critical moment in our democracy. To carry
out this resolve, the IBP is launching an IBP Impeachment Watch and
IBP Impeachment Communications Group to keep the public informed.
We call on the public to join in prayer with the IBP in its vigil for a
fair and credible impeachment proceedings consistent with the Rule of
Law.
A PRAYERFUL HOPE