Fr. Joaquin Bernas, an authority on Constitutional Law, in his Commentaries on the 1987 Philippine Constitution (2003), states under the heading "Nature and initiation of Impeachment", that "[t]he impeachment proceedings begin with a complaint filed with the House of Representatives either by a member of the House or by any citizen supported by a resolution of endorsement by any member." It should be noted that "initiate’ comes from the Latin word initiare (initiatus), which means "to begin." Thus, initiate means to cause to begin.
The Record of the Constitutional Commission discloses that in reference to the one-year bar and its reckoning point, Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta equated the complaint or charge filed by a Congressman or citizen endorsed by a Congressman with the word "proceeding". Thus, he said during one of the deliberations that, ‘[i]n other words, one year has to elapse before a second or subsequent charge or proceeding can be initiated.
During the deliberations, an amendment was proposed by Commissioner Florenz Regalado to Art. XI, Section 3(3) which read as follows:
A vote of at least one-third of all the members of the House shall be necessary to initiate impeachment proceedings, either to affirm a resolution of impeachment by the committee or to override its contrary resolution, the votes of each member shall be recorded. (Emphasis Supplied)
The amendment was accepted initially, but Commissioner Regalado Maambong expressed the view that "we do not really initiate the filing of the Articles of Impeachment on the floor. The procedure, as I have pointed out earlier, was that the initiation starts with the filing of the complaint. And what is actually done on the floor is that the committee resolution containing the Articles of Impeachment is the one approved by the body." He explained that the procedure is akin to that practiced by the United States House of Representatives, exemplified by the impeachment proceedings against Nixon, where it is not the body, which initiates the proceedings.
On July 29, 1986, Commissioner Maambong proposed a further amendment to Commissioner Regalado’s earlier amendment. His amendment dispensed with the phrase "to initiate impeachment proceedings" so that the provision read:
A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee or to override a contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
He added that the proposal was in keeping with what he stated the day before, that "initiation, as far as the House of Representatives of the United States is concerned, really starts from the filing of the verified complaint and every resolution to impeach carries with it the Articles of Impeachment."
The President of the Committee then asked what Commissioners Regalado and Hilario Davide Jr., co-authors of the section, had to say about the proposal of Commissioner Maambong. The session was suspended for a few minutes when Commissioner Christian Monsod requested for time to confer with Commissioner Regalado. Upon continuation of the proceedings, Commissioner Maambong took the floor and stated that the co-authors had no objection to his amendment, and only wanted to make it of record that the body (or the House itself) and not the committee, shall prepare the Articles of Impeachment. As it stands now, Section 3(3), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution reads:
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. (Emphasis Supplied)
The provision is the same as the amendment introduced by Commissioner Maambong with the underscored words as the only modifications, which were subsequently introduced for style and are irrelevant to the present controversy.
The Constitution further states that "[t]he House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment" and that "(t)he Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section."
The 1999 Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the House of Representatives (the 1999 House Rules) were promulgated apparently pursuant to its "exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment." (Note that it is Congress, i.e., both the House of Representatives and the Senate, which is mandated to "promulgate its rules on impeachment." It may be argued the House of Representatives promulgated its own rules pertaining to its role and that the Senate its own rules for its respective participation in the process, and thus, there is no need for both chambers acting asCongress to promulgate composite rules). Expressly addressing the reckoning point, Rule II, Section 2 of the 1999 House Rules reads:
Sec. 2. Mode of Initiating Impeachment. – Impeachment shall be initiated only by a verified complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof or by a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House.
In fact, former President Estrada was impeached with this provision and the 1999 House Rules were already in effect in 1999.
However, the 1999 House Rules were superseded and replaced by the Rules on Impeachment Proceedings, 12th Congress, 2001-2004 promulgated by the House of Representatives in 2001 (the "2001 House Rules"). The relevant provision now reads:
Section 16. Impeachment Proceedings Deemed Initiated. –In cases where a Member of the House files a verified complaint of impeachment or a citizen files a verified complaint that is endorsed by a member of the House through a resolution of endorsement against an impeachable officer, impeachment proceedings against such official are deemed initiated on the day the Committee on Justice finds that the verified complaint and/or resolution against such official, as the case may be, is sufficient in substance or on the date the House votes to overturn or affirm the finding of said Committee that the verified complaint and/or resolution, as the case may be, is not sufficient in substance.
In cases where a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed or endorsed, as the case may be, by at least one-third (1/3) of the Members of the House, impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated at the time of the filing of such verified complaint or resolution of impeachment with the Secretary General. (Emphasis Supplied)
And the one-year bar, as interpreted by the present 2001 House Rules, is treated in the following provision:
Section 17. Bar Against Initiation of Impeachment Proceedings. – Within a period of one (1) year from the date impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated as provided in Section 16 hereof, no impeachment proceedings, as such, can be initiated against the same official.
It is thus apparent that the House has abandoned its previous view as to when impeachment proceedings are initiated. Whereas in the 1999 House Rules, impeachment proceedings are initiated upon the filing of the verified complaint whether sufficient in substance or not, the present 2001 House Rules added as a requirement for initiation not only the sufficiency in substance of the verified complaint, but also a finding of sufficiency in substance by the Committee on Justice, or the House, as the case may be. Moreover, if the Committee finds that the complaint is insufficient in substance, its decision is reviewed by the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, the reckoning point adopted by the House of Representatives in the 2001 House Rules is diametrically opposed to that intended by the drafters of the Constitution.
I understand that the change was intended to negate the so-called "inoculation" strategem which was apparently evolving to defeat impeachment. It appears that a couple of "friendly" congressmen filed deliberately baseless and weak impeachment charges against their "favored" public officials to pre-empt real impeachment charges from being filed within the one-year bar. Thus, the favored public officials were "inoculated" or "safe" from real impeachment charges for the year. The scheme was to file yearly for the duration of the "favored" public officials’ term of office, and therefore making them "impeachment-proof" or "unimpeachable."
Prescinding from the validity of the 2001 House Rules having been promulgated only by the House of Representatives and not by Congress, between the intent of the framers of the Constitution and rule-making power of the House of Representatives, the intent prevails. The intent expresses what the law really is at the time it was enacted. Rule-making power, in contrast, gives details and interprets, and may give the law a meaning which may not be consistent with what the law was envisioned to be. This is especially the case when the House itself had made an initial interpretation of the constitutional provision in a manner that was consistent with the intent of the framers, but later on departed from such adherence and substituted another version.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his latest article, advances the same argument as above. Although Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution states that "[t]he House of Representatives shall have exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment", Fr. Bernas argues that the succeeding sections indicate how this exclusive power is exercised. In his opinion, "[t]he language of the Constitution has given rise to the controversy. In such a situation, it is legitimate to have recourse to what the drafters of the Constitution meant." Since the drafters reckon the initiation of the proceedings from the filing of a verified complaint by a Member of the House or a citizen, endorsed by a Member of the House, then impeachment proceedings are initiated from that time, and not at any other time.
Impeachment proceedings are therefore initiated from the time a verified charge or complaint is filed with the House of Representatives by a Member of the House or a citizen endorsed by a Member of the House. It can also be initiated when, there being no verified complaint filed by a citizen or member of the House, one-third or 1/3 of the entire House files a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment.
For purposes of applying the one-year bar, impeachment proceedings cannot be filed within one year from the time: a) a verified complaint is filed with the House of Representatives; or in the alternative b) where there was no verified complaint filed in the House by a citizen, duly endorsed by a Member of the House, or any Member of the House, one-third (1/3) of the entire House files a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment.
If at all, the controversial portion of 2001 House Rules could be used only to screen "inoculation" impeachment charges and defeat the so-called "impeachment-proofing" scheme.
It is unfortunate that Chief Justice Davide, who was a member of the Constitutional Commission, is being misquoted on the issue, i.e., for initiation of impeachment proceedings, a vote of the membership of the House is required. It appears that, on July 26, 1986, there was an exchange on the requirements in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions for the required vote to initiate impeachment proceedings, as follows:
MR. MONSOD: And we would like very much to be advised by the body of this. 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.
MR. DAVIDE: That is for conviction, but not for initiation. Initiation of impeachment proceedings still requires a vote of one-fifth of the membership of the House under the 1935 Constitution.
MR. MONSOD: A two-thirds of the membership of the House is required to initiate proceedings.
MR. DAVIDE: No, for initiation of impeachment proceedings, only one-fifth vote of the membership of the House is required; for conviction, a two-thirds vote of the membership is required. (Emphasis Supplied)
MR. MONSOD: For conviction, it is three-fourths vote of the Senate, Madam President.
Obviously, the exchange pertained to the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions and was before the Maambong amendment, which was adopted and is now controlling.