Accountability of Public Officers & Impeachment

Article XI, Sec. 1 and 2

-0-
Holy Cross Novitiate
Diliman, Quezon City
Lectio Divina. Please reflect on the following words: “Defend the cause of the weak
and fatherless; uphold the rights of the afflicted and oppressed. Rescue the lowly and poor;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked” (Ps. 82:3-4)

I. Historical background of Article XI

 As early as the 1930 and into the Commonwealth era, the
state already had means and ways through provisioned
statutes and legal representation through executive orders,
about what and how to control public office, examples
include but not limited to: Executive Order 111, or the Anti-
Nepotism Law by President Manuel Quezon and the Auditing
Act which created the National Auditor-General, which in turn
became the Commission on Audit.
 Public office is a public trust (Art. XI, Sec. 1, sent. 1) it is a
sacred office which has been entrusted by the sovereign.
The sovereign in a republic is the people (Art. II, sec. 1). The
people elects their representatives, their officers who shall
serve for them, and not over them. (Agpalo, 2019)
 During the Marcos-era and Martial Law era government,
nepotism, kleptocracy and government excesses often by
military officers and civilian cronies were the remembrance of
Article XI.
 Article XI became the core of the Philippine policy in
disciplining the politicians serving the nation.
 Another cornerstone of the Article was the apparent excess
and lavish lifestyle of the people working in government,
those who seemed to have served in government always
leave their offices with new clothes, fancy cars etc that are
not within their pay grade.
  Article XI is a product of Martial Law era corruption, and
constitutional commissioners of 1986, those who wrote the
new constitution, saw the excesses of the past regime as the
cornerstone in checking the control and use of political
offices.
 Public officers and officers were created to serve only the
people, and those security provided by the offices can be
taken from them by the people (impeachment).
 The 1973 Constitution had a provision in the protection of the
public office from unscrupulous people, however in the 1987
constitution, new reforms were introduced, such as the “live
modest lives” phrase in Art. XI Sec. 1.

II. The Law, Art. XI, Sec. 1

 “PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST. PUBLIC
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES MUST AT ALL TIMES BE
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE, SERVE THEM WITH
UTMOST RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY, LOYALTY, AND
EFFICIENCY, ACT WITH PATRIOTISM AND JUSTICE,
AND LEAD MODEST LIVES.”
 In the case of Cornejo v. Gabriel, Justice Malcolm states
that:
“the basic idea of government in the Philippines "is that of a
representative government, the officers being mere agents and
not rulers of the people, one where no one man or set of men
has a proprietary or contractual right to an office, but where
every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of law and
holds the office as a trust for the people whom he represents."
 Thus, public office is not a contractual office, nor is it
supposed to be taken in as a property that can be given up
by the office holder to any officer or personnel.
 Public office means not just public elected offices, but
also includes civil service offices which is usually
acquired by examination and rigor.
  However, for those in Civil Service, those offices which is
usually acquired by examination and rigor, due to
security of tenure, they cannot be easily terminated, and
thus, the civil service personnel reign over their office is
often seen as a property compared to that of the
ELECTED public office.
 The Supreme Court has specified that giving performance
based bonuses to officers of the state does not violate the
law specified above, the reasoning is the law does not ban
the state from granting to the officers thereof any increments
or rewards that is due to them because of industry, efficiency
or effectivity. (Abakada Guro v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715,
August 14, 2008.)

III. Impeachment
 “THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE-PRESIDENT, THE
MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE MEMBERS
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, AND THE
OMBUDSMAN MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, ON
IMPEACHMENT FOR, AND CONVICTION OF, CULPABLE
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, TREASON,
BRIBERY, GRAFT AND CORRUPTION, OTHER HIGH
CRIMES, OR BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST. AL L
OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES MAY BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS PROVIDED BY LAW, BUT
NOT BY IMPEACHMENT.”
 History. Impeachment is a product of the Anglo-Saxon
Legal System. Impeachment is a product of British legal
thinking. However: in Britain, kings were not to be
impeached because they were the “heart and soul” of
government, the Prime Minister cannot be impeached
because, even though he was the most powerful politician,
he could still be removed by simple majority vote of no
confidence, which made the legal and political system more
stable and more accountable—at least political wise.
 American. The impeachment process was taken from the
British colonials in America and transplanted in the
Philippine republic. The American founding fathers opted to
create a republic with an elected head of state rather than a
king, and they thought that the necessary conditions of their
republic prompted a system of removing unwanted people
from the presidency. However, the American founding
fathers realized that making impeachment a political process
means that the President may be removed by any officer on
any account or charge based on or motivated purely by
political motivations. They also realized that the president
cannot be touched by any ordinary legal or criminal
questions, as it would disturb his official duties. Thus, the
first principle of what impeachment is was formulated: it is a
system of protecting the people and not punishing the
politician, ergo, it is not a criminal procedure. Even
though some of the rights of the Bill of Rights such as
Sec. 14 can be used in impeachment, it is still a political
process, and not a judicial process, and thus, it can only
be used against a person based on the specifications of
the Constitution (as stated above).
 Impeachment is a political process. It is not a criminal or
judicial process. It pits an elected legislature (The
Congress of the Philippines) against an elected head of
state or constitutional officer (Sec. 2, Art. XI)
 The courts have a monopoly over judicial actions, but
the constitution of 1987 gives ONLY two exceptions, the
COMELEC and Electoral Tribunals deciding as courts
over election disputes, and the Congress, specifically
the senate acting as Impeachment court. And citing as
impeachment as a POLITICAL and not a JUDICIAL
process, the Supreme Court cannot review the decision
of the Senate, and thus, the Senate, alone, acts as the
first, second, third, and last arbiter of impeachment.
 Citing as the case of impeachment as a political process
aimed at protecting the people from unwanted
 politicians, it is not a CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. Thus,
after one is impeached, he/she is open to any ordinary
criminal proceeding/charges such as Malversation of
Funds, Graft and Plunder, and a host of crimes in the
RPC or Special Penal Laws.
 Thus, impeachment is a PERMANENT and
IRREVERSIBLE decision done by the Senate that is NOT
equal to a CRIMINAL CHARGE. And being PERMANENT
AND IRREVERSIBLE, the charges against a person laid
out in Sec. 2, Art. XI must be precise.