Impeachment and Quo Warranto: Accountability of Public Officers under Political Law and Public International Law

In the context of Political Law and the Law on Public Officers in the Philippines, impeachment and quo warranto are significant legal remedies to hold public officers accountable. These two processes, though distinct in nature, serve as mechanisms for the removal of certain high-ranking officials in the event of their incapacity, misconduct, or lack of eligibility.

1. Impeachment

Impeachment is a process designed for removing certain high officials from office for committing impeachable offenses. The procedure for impeachment is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, particularly under Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers).

a. Impeachable Officers

Under Section 2, the following officials may be removed through impeachment:

The President
The Vice President
The Members of the Supreme Court
The Members of the Constitutional Commissions (i.e., Commission on Audit, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections)
The Ombudsman

These are the highest-ranking public officials, and the Constitution limits their removal from office to the process of impeachment.

b. Grounds for Impeachment

Section 2 of Article XI lists the following grounds for impeachment:

Culpable violation of the Constitution - This refers to a willful and deliberate disregard or breach of the Constitution by a public official.
Treason - The act of levying war against the Philippines or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Bribery - Offering or receiving any undue reward for official acts.
Graft and corruption - Any act constituting a crime under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
Other high crimes - These refer to serious offenses or abuses of power.
Betrayal of public trust - A catch-all ground that covers acts not necessarily constituting crimes but involve a violation of the people’s trust.

c. Impeachment Procedure

The impeachment process in the Philippines is primarily a two-step process:

Initiation of Impeachment in the House of Representatives:
- Any member of the House of Representatives may file a verified complaint for impeachment. Alternatively, a verified complaint may be filed by any citizen with the endorsement of a member of the House.
- The complaint is referred to the House Committee on Justice, which will determine the sufficiency of form and substance.
- Once found sufficient, the committee will conduct hearings and if warranted, submit a resolution of impeachment to the House for consideration.
- A vote of one-third (1/3) of all the members of the House is required to approve the articles of impeachment. If such a vote is secured, the official is impeached, and the articles are forwarded to the Senate for trial.
Trial by the Senate:
- The Senate acts as the Impeachment Court, with the Senators serving as judges. The Senate President presides, except when the President of the Philippines is on trial, in which case the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides.
- The impeached official is tried, and a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Senate is required for conviction. Upon conviction, the official is removed from office and may be disqualified from holding any public office in the future.
- Conviction in an impeachment trial does not preclude the filing of criminal or civil cases, as impeachment pertains only to the removal from office.

d. Limitations on Impeachment

Only one impeachment proceeding can be initiated against the same official within a period of one year.
Impeachment is exclusive to officials mentioned in the Constitution. Other public officials are subject to different methods of removal, such as disciplinary actions or quo warranto proceedings.

2. Quo Warranto

Quo warranto is a legal remedy used to challenge the right of an individual to hold a public office. While impeachment is a political process, quo warranto is a judicial proceeding. It primarily focuses on the eligibility or qualification of a public officer and not on their conduct while in office.

a. Grounds for Quo Warranto

A quo warranto petition may be filed when there are questions regarding:

Ineligibility or lack of qualifications to hold office at the time of the officer’s assumption of office. This includes instances where the individual does not meet the constitutional or legal requirements for the position.
Usurpation of public office, which occurs when an individual unlawfully occupies a position without the legal authority to do so.

b. Procedure for Quo Warranto

Filing of Petition:
- A quo warranto petition may be initiated by the Solicitor General or a person with a claim to the office.
- The Solicitor General is empowered to file the petition on behalf of the state when the public office or position is unlawfully held by a person who lacks the qualifications.
Jurisdiction:
- The petition is filed before the Regional Trial Court or in cases involving public officers like the President, Vice President, or members of constitutional commissions, it may be brought before the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals.
Burden of Proof:
- The petitioner must present sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent is not qualified or has unlawfully occupied the office in question.

c. Quo Warranto vs. Impeachment

Though both processes deal with removing public officers, they are fundamentally different:

Quo warranto addresses questions of eligibility and qualification of the officer at the time of appointment or election.
Impeachment, on the other hand, focuses on the misconduct or offenses committed by an official while in office.
Impeachment applies to impeachable officials, while quo warranto applies to both impeachable and non-impeachable officials, but has been controversially used against impeachable officers.

d. Case Example: Quo Warranto vs. Chief Justice Sereno

The quo warranto petition filed by the Solicitor General to remove Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno from office in 2018 is a landmark case. Sereno's appointment was challenged based on her alleged failure to meet the SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth) requirement. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the quo warranto petition, effectively removing her from office. This case has raised questions about the relationship between quo warranto and impeachment since it involved an impeachable officer.

Conclusion

Both impeachment and quo warranto are legal mechanisms that ensure public officials are held accountable, though they operate differently. Impeachment addresses the misconduct of officials during their term, focusing on ensuring integrity in public service through a political process that culminates in trial by the Senate. Quo warranto, meanwhile, is a judicial remedy that seeks to ensure that only qualified individuals hold public office. These processes, despite their distinct purposes, are integral to maintaining the rule of law and integrity in governance in the Philippines.