How and when is impeachment initiated?

UPDATED TWICE: How and when is impeachment "initiated"? when an ordinary citizen files a verified impeachment complaint in the House? Or by a vote of one third of the House members? since mr. oliver lozano has already filed his second impeachment complaint, i think this is worth taking a look back again.

Here are the Impeachment Provisions under the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

Paragraphs (1) to (8) of Section 3
Article XI
Accountability of Public Officers

(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.

(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.

(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.

(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

(7) 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, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.

(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.

Now hold on here, Para 1) said House of Reps have the exclusive power to initiate impeachment.

Now surely, Mr. Oliver Lozano cannot "initiate" impeachment by filing a "verified complaint" because that is the exclusive power of the House of Reps.

Don't believe me? Ito kasi ang sinabi ni Hilario Davide at Christian Monsod sa CON COM deliberations nila nung 1986.

It seems to me that Hilario Davide knew exactly what "initiating an impeachment proceeding" meant and required... but he's changing his tune now, isn't he? but guess who was one of it's main proponents (to "lower the bar") during the 1986 Con Com deliberations:

Mr. Davide: "So the thrust of the report is really to relax impeachment as a process. I notice, however, that the proposal now requires a majority vote of all the members of the House to initiate imepachment...so if we are going to relax impeachment, we should retain the one-fifth requirement to initiate impeachment and perhaps even reduce the requirement for conviction."

Mr. Monsod: "We were looking at the past where, in the 1973 Constitution, a vote of 20 percent (or one-fifth) of the membership of the House, and in the 1935 Constitution, a vote of two-thirds of the membership of the House were required to initiate impeachment proceedings

Other must read articles on when impeachment is initiated from the indispensible Dean Jorge Bocobo.

-- The One-Third rule creates a Constitutional Crisis
-- The Strange Logic of Joaquin Bernas and the Supreme Court on Initiation
-- The Once Per Year Rule--Quod Erat Demonstrandum

UPDATE: More from Dean Jorge Bocobo on when impeachment is initiated:

When the shoe is on the other foot
Posted:2:46 AM (Manila Time) | Nov. 10, 2003
By Commentary

IMPEACHMENT is how Filipinos learn the dead language of Latin. For example, eight learned friends of the Court -- the amici curiae ("ah-ME-key CURE-ree-yee") expressed strong contradictory opinions on Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.'s impeachment last week. So, the Supreme Court burns the midnight oil to find a Solomonic solution to the crisis, since it is being urged by private parties to be a mother in the dispute and claim jurisdiction over the infant impeachment. Still, the framers did not conceive of the Constitution as a whole, but innovated on previous texts and traditions. Disastrously, as it turns out.

Today, the die may be cast in Articles of Impeachment, though the art of the areglo or the science of quorum can still prolong the agony. Things may be delayed if the Supreme Court has not yet found the words that will stand the scrutiny of history's vast audience. But Congress may initiate impeachment proceedings anyway against Davide, for the first time, if 76 signatures appear on a Resolution for Impeachment. Meanwhile, I'm dismayed that Senate President Frank Drilon wants to shirk the duties of the real Solomon in "all cases of impeachment."

Whatever happens later, there is a growing realization on all sides that the 1987 Philippine Constitution contains a dangerous ideological mutation, that incredible one-third rule of impeachment by an absolute minority of the Lower House. Yet, few who are bleating today about "unseemly haste," were not so fussy when it was used on Joseph "Erap" Estrada:

"Art XI Sec 3 (3): A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded. (4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed."

With alacrity! But who invented the one-third rule and why did they think it improved on two-thirds or one-half plus one? Sen. Rene Saguisag points to Pages 375-76 Vol II, 1986 ConCom Record:

MR. DAVIDE: "... I notice that the proposal now requires a majority vote of all the members of the House to initiate impeachment, while the present constitutional provision requires only a vote of one-fifth of the Members. If we are going to relax impeachment, we should retain the one-fifth requirement to initiate impeachment and, perhaps, even reduce the requirement for conviction."

Read Davide's lips. The members must vote to initiate impeachment. Davide binds initiation of impeachment to the act and arithmetic of voting for impeachment. He wanted to keep it at one-fifth to initiate impeachment, and even reduce the two-thirds vote in the Senate for conviction. Justice Davide does not remember Commissioner Davide's words? Surely, friends Regalado Maambong, Florenz Regalado and Joaquin Bernas do, since they were present at those deliberations.

But Davide stunningly refutes the disingenuous colloquialists in the debate over "initiate"-like UP Dean Raul Pangalangan and Sen. Jovito Salonga, who explicably revised and misquoted the Constitution on the front page of the Inquirer (see related stories) because its plain text contradicts their prejudice. Davide lets the framers of the 1973 Constitution explain it to the resolutely dense:

"... Upon the filing of a verified complaint, the Batasang Pambansa may initiate impeachment by a vote of at least one-fifth of all its Members...."

Impeachment proceedings cannot be initiated by the filing of a verified complaint. Else, a deliberately flawed complaint could inoculate against it-such as when Rep. Butch Pichay cynically filed such a complaint for impeachment against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2001. Now, if I were Wimpy Fuentebella or Gilbert Teodoro, I might indulge Conrado de Quiros and try to impeach Gloria, or some worthy target like the Comelec, with multiple, simultaneous complaints for impeachment, just to prove this point about initiation. The preliminary investigations are not the initiation of impeachment proceedings under the Constitution, says Davide himself.

UPDATE: Pointless rin naman yung ginawa ni Oliver Lozano dahil hindi naman ito unahan sa pag-file ng impeachment complaint eh. Impeachment proceedings will only be initiated once a verified complaint gets approved by a one-third vote of all House members.

Don't believe me? Here's what 1986 CON COM member Hilario Davide and Christian Monsod said during their CON COM deliberations on how and when impeachment is initiated.

Mr. Davide: "So the thrust of the report is really to relax impeachment as a process. I notice, however, that the proposal now requires a majority vote of all the members of the House to initiate impeachment...so if we are going to relax impeachment, we should retain the one-fifth requirement to initiate impeachment and perhaps even reduce the requirement for conviction."

Biro mo, back then Davide even wanted to lower the requirements to 1/5 vote to impeach. the 1987 constitution of course currently requires a one-third vote of all members of the house to impeach a president.

And here's mr. christian monsod's input:

Mr. Monsod: "We were looking at the past where, in the 1973 Constitution, a vote of 20 percent of the membership of the House, and in the 1935 Constitution, a vote of two-thirds of the membership of the House were required to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Tama ang sinabi ni Monsod about the requirements to initiate impeachment sa 1973 Constitution. From Bocobo's Article:

Davide lets the framers of the 1973 Constitution explain it to the resolutely dense:

"... Upon the filing of a verified complaint, the Batasang Pambansa may initiate impeachment by a vote of at least one-fifth of all its Members...."

So this unahan to file an impeachment complaint is not necessary, because the impeachment process will only be initiated once it got the 1/3 vote of all the House members and the articles of impeachment is then delivered to the senate for trial.

Remember in the Clinton trial, there were four articles of impeachment submitted, and two of them passed. Meaning, the House in the US voted four times (on each article of impeachment), and two impeachment complaints got approved. So dapat sa atin, the RP House members should have voted on each of the 3 impeachment complaints (#1 Lozano, #2 by another guy, #3 opposition).

You can file as many impeachment complaints as you want, pero only the verified complaint that has the required number of votes (1/3 vote of the House members) can initiate impeachment. And once impeachment is initiated, there's a one-year ban on initiating another impeachment proceeding against the same official.

UPDATE: I posted the Davide and Monsod comments on a known pro-ARroyo defender/blogger back in 2003 to get her reaction, But I did not get a response from her.

BTW, I used the cache version because wala na yung orig na article niya doon sa link na yon.

UDPATE: Oh, here it is pala on sassy lawyer, but the comments have been deleted na.

UPDATE: kapag hawak mo talaga ang kongreso, mahirap kang ma-impeach. biro mo sa 1973 constitution ni marcos, you only need one-fifth of all the Batasan members to vote for impeachment, instead of one-third like our present constitution, BUT STILL... Marcos was never impeached, even though getting one-fifth of all the members vote is easier than getting one-third in our present constitution.

Shows you two things:

1) na the shift to a parliamentary system won't do much to remove corrupt dictators and illegitimate rulers.

2) kapag hawak mo ang Congress like what Marcos then and Arroyo is doing right now, mahirap ma-impeach ang mga cheating crooks na katulad nila.