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 (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
|
|---|
Cuenco filed a disbarment case against Justice Marcelo Fernan, which the SC dismissed for utter lack of merit.
Meanwhile, Tanodbayan/Special Prosecutor Gonzalez received a letter-complaint. Attached in the letter was an anonymous letter by "Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court" addressed to Gonzalez referring to charges for disbarment brought by Cuenco against Justice Fernan and asking Gonzalez "to do something about this." Also attached was a copy of a telegram from Cuenco addressed to Gonzalez wherein Cuenco encouraged Gonzalez to file responsive pleading to the Supreme Court en banc to comply with the Petition of Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court asking Tanodbayan's intervention.
Gonzalez indorsed the letter-complaint to Justice Fernan, who, in turn, brought the matter to the SC en banc.
Issue:
Meanwhile, Tanodbayan/Special Prosecutor Gonzalez received a letter-complaint. Attached in the letter was an anonymous letter by "Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court" addressed to Gonzalez referring to charges for disbarment brought by Cuenco against Justice Fernan and asking Gonzalez "to do something about this." Also attached was a copy of a telegram from Cuenco addressed to Gonzalez wherein Cuenco encouraged Gonzalez to file responsive pleading to the Supreme Court en banc to comply with the Petition of Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court asking Tanodbayan's intervention.
Gonzalez indorsed the letter-complaint to Justice Fernan, who, in turn, brought the matter to the SC en banc.
Issue:
May a Supreme Court justice be disbarred during his term of office?
Held:
No. A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of the Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer. Further, such public officer, during his incumbency, cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offence which carries with it the penalty of removal from office, or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.
To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member's incumbency, would in effect be to circumvent and hence to run afoul of the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may be removed from office only by impeachment for and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article XI (2) of the Constitution.
The Court is not here saying that it Members or the other constitutional officers we referred to above are entitled to immunity from liability for possibly criminal acts or for alleged violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics or other supposed misbehavior. What the Court is saying is that there is a fundamental procedural requirements that must be observed before such liability may be determined and enforced. A Member of the Supreme Court must first be removed from office via the constitutional route of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Should the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively (by disbarment proceedings) for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings. (In Re: Gonzalez, A.M. No. 88-4-5433, April 15, 1988)
No. A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of the Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer. Further, such public officer, during his incumbency, cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offence which carries with it the penalty of removal from office, or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.
To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member's incumbency, would in effect be to circumvent and hence to run afoul of the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may be removed from office only by impeachment for and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article XI (2) of the Constitution.
The Court is not here saying that it Members or the other constitutional officers we referred to above are entitled to immunity from liability for possibly criminal acts or for alleged violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics or other supposed misbehavior. What the Court is saying is that there is a fundamental procedural requirements that must be observed before such liability may be determined and enforced. A Member of the Supreme Court must first be removed from office via the constitutional route of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Should the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively (by disbarment proceedings) for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings. (In Re: Gonzalez, A.M. No. 88-4-5433, April 15, 1988)
0 Comments
Post a Comment