Who Can Be Impeached in the Philippines: Presidents, Justices, and Other Officials
Introduction: Why the “Impeachable Officers” List Matters
Impeachment is the Constitution’s highest removal process for certain top officials. It matters in real disputes because it answers a threshold question: Is impeachment the only way to remove this official? If the official is not on the Constitution’s exclusive list, removal must proceed “as provided by law,” typically through administrative discipline, quo warranto (where applicable), or criminal prosecution, depending on the position and the governing statute.
Governing Constitutional Provisions (1987 Constitution)
The controlling rule is found in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) of the 1987 Constitution.
1) The exclusive list of impeachable officers
Under the 1987 Constitution, only the following may be removed by impeachment: the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987).
2) Everyone else: removal “as provided by law,” not by impeachment
The same constitutional provision expressly states that all other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987). This is the constitutional dividing line between impeachment and other lawful modes of removal.
The Constitutional Procedure: House Initiates, Senate Tries
Even for officials who are impeachable, the Constitution assigns distinct roles to Congress:
House of Representatives: holds the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(1), February 2, 1987).
Senate: has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, and conviction requires a vote of two-thirds of all Senators (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(6), February 2, 1987).
Effect of judgment: impeachment judgment does not go beyond removal and possible disqualification, but the convicted official may still face prosecution under ordinary law (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(7), February 2, 1987).
Duterte v. House of Representatives (2025): Impeachment Is Not “Purely Political”
In Duterte v. House of Representatives (2025), the Supreme Court described impeachment as a primarily legal and constitutional process, not merely political, and held that it must observe constitutional requirements, including due process and the right to speedy disposition of cases (Duterte v. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 278353, 2025).
The decision also reiterated that the enumeration of impeachable officers under Article XI, Section 2 is exclusive, meaning the list cannot be expanded by interpretation or by ordinary legislation (Duterte v. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 278353, 2025).
Who Exactly Are “Members of the Constitutional Commissions”?
The phrase “Members of the Constitutional Commissions” refers to the constitutional bodies under Article IX of the 1987 Constitution: the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Commission on Elections (COMELEC), and Commission on Audit (COA). As impeachable officers, their removal (for the constitutionally listed grounds) is through impeachment and conviction, not ordinary administrative removal.
Examples of Officials Commonly Mistaken as Impeachable (But Are Not)
Confusion often arises because some offices are high-profile yet are still outside the constitutional list. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that impeachment is limited to those expressly named in Article XI, Section 2.
Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals (2005): Deputy Ombudsman Is Not Impeachable
In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals (2005), the Supreme Court held that a Deputy Ombudsman is not an impeachable officer under Article XI, Section 2; only the Ombudsman is included in the constitutional list (Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146486, 2005).
As a result, a Deputy Ombudsman may be investigated and removed as provided by law, through the mechanisms applicable to that office (Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146486, 2005).
Summary Table: Impeachment vs. Removal “as Provided by Law”
Use this as a quick checklist before alleging “impeachable offense” or demanding impeachment.
| Question | If YES | If NO |
|---|---|---|
| Is the official on the Article XI, Section 2 list (President, VP, SC Justices, Constitutional Commission members, Ombudsman)? | Removal is through impeachment and conviction(1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987). | Removal must be as provided by law, but not by impeachment (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987). |
| Does the House initiate and does the Senate try the case? | Proceed under the Constitution’s impeachment procedure (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3, February 2, 1987). | Proceed under the applicable statute, rules on administrative discipline, or other proper remedy. |
| Can courts review impeachment acts? | Judicial review may apply to ensure compliance with constitutional requirements such as due process and constitutional limits (Duterte v. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 278353, 2025). | Courts review depends on the relevant removal mechanism and its governing law. |
Typical Scenarios (and What the Rule Means)
Scenario 1: A citizen wants to impeach a Cabinet Secretary.
Cabinet members are not on the Article XI, Section 2 list. Therefore, they are not removable by impeachment; any removal or discipline must proceed under the applicable laws and rules governing executive officials (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987).
Scenario 2: A complaint targets a Deputy Ombudsman.
A Deputy Ombudsman is not impeachable. The proper course is removal or discipline as provided by law, consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling (Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146486, 2005; 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987).
Scenario 3: An impeachment complaint is filed but allegedly violates constitutional requirements.
Duterte v. House of Representatives (2025) emphasizes that impeachment must still observe constitutional safeguards like due process and the right to speedy disposition of cases, and that the Supreme Court may review compliance with constitutional requirements (Duterte v. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 278353, 2025).
Related Compliance Point: SALN Rules Do Not Expand the Impeachment List
Administrative rules on filing or transmitting Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) identify repositories and covered officials (e.g., constitutional officials) for compliance purposes. However, they do not and cannot expand the Constitution’s exclusive list of impeachable officers (Department Circular No. 026, 2020; 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987; Duterte v. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 278353, 2025).
What to Check Before Claiming an Official Is “Impeachable”
- Step 1: Verify the office. Confirm whether it is one of the five categories in Article XI, Section 2 (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987).
- Step 2: If not listed, stop impeachment talk. The Constitution bars impeachment for everyone else; use removal “as provided by law” (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987).
- Step 3: If listed, follow the constitutional route. House initiation and Senate trial procedures apply (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3, February 2, 1987).
- Step 4: Keep constitutional safeguards in mind. Impeachment must still comply with constitutional requirements recognized by the Supreme Court (Duterte v. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 278353, 2025).
Conclusion: The List Is Closed, and the Remedy Must Match the Office
The 1987 Constitution sets a closed list of impeachable officers: the President, Vice-President, Members of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987). For everyone else, removal is handled “as provided by law,” and the Constitution explicitly bars using impeachment as a substitute (1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 2, February 2, 1987).
Supreme Court decisions reinforce both points: the list is exclusive, and impeachment—while carried out by political bodies—remains governed by constitutional requirements, including due process and other safeguards (Duterte v. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 278353, 2025; Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146486, 2005).
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
