Photo from Pexels | Rosemary Ketchum
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Under Article 11, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, 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. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
In the case of Re: Letter of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona, A.M. 20-07-10-SC, January 12, 2021, the Supreme Court held that while both impeachment and quo warranto seek the ultimate removal of an incumbent government officer, the two differ as to nature, jurisdiction, grounds, the applicable procedural rules, and limitations.
In impeachment, the Congress is the prosecutor, the trier, and the judge, whereas quo warranto petitions are instituted either by the Solicitor General in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines or by an individual claiming the public office in issue, both of which petitions are cognizable only by the Supreme Court.
Impeachment proceedings seek to confirm and vindicate the breach of the trust reposed by the Filipino people upon the impeachable official, but quo warranto determines the legal right, title, eligibility, or qualifications of the incumbent to the contested public office.
The 1987 Constitution, as supplemented by the internal rules of procedure of the Congress, directs the course of impeachment proceedings. Quo warranto cases, on the other hand, are dictated by the Rules of Court. The end result of an impeachment proceeding is the removal of the public officer, and his or her perpetual political disqualification from holding public office. On the other hand, when a quo warranto petition is granted, ouster from office is likewise meted, but the Court can likewise impose upon the public officer additional penalties such as reimbursement of costs pertaining to the rightful holder of the public office and such further judgment determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position, or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires.
A judgment in quo warranto case determines the respondent’s constitutional or legal authority to perform any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays claim; meanwhile a judgment in an impeachment proceeding pertains to a respondent’s “fitness for public office.”
Related articles:
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.