The Impeachment Process Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution declares that Public office is a public trust.

Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. These words echo loud and clear today as our countrys leaders find themselves at the brink of conducting this constitutional process. Impeachment has been defined as a national inquest into the conduct of public men. It is a necessary safeguard to ensure that public officers have the moral fitness and integrity to fulfill their mandate. The provisions on impeachment are enshrined in Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. WHO MAY BE IMPEACHED Under the Constitution only the following public officers may be impeached: The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. This list of officers is exclusive. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT The grounds for impeachment are: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. These grounds are exclusive and offenses not falling within these parameters shall not be sufficient for impeachment purposes. PROCESS AT THE HOUSE The process begins at the House of Representatives, which has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. A verified complaint must be filed by either a Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof. Once the verified complaint has been filed it 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. In the committee hearings, 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. If however, 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. TRIAL AT THE SENATE The Senate has the sole power of 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. CONSEQUENCES OF CONVICTION The person impeached shall be removed from office and shall be disqualified 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. It is clear that the liability does not end at the Senate, the person impeached shall also be held for appropriate action as a result of his illegal and improper acts. In addition, a limitation is set where no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ARTICLE XI ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Section 2. 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. Section 3. (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.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES House of Representatives Complex Constitution Hills, Quezon City IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C. CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTATIVES NIEL C. TUPAS JR., ET AL., (other complainants comprising at least one-third (1/3 of the total Members of the House of Representatives are indicated below), Complainants. x---------------------------------------------------x

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR IMPEACHMENT Undersigned COMPLAINANTS most respectfully file this duly Verified Complaint for the Impeachment of the Honorable Renato C. Corona, currently the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (hereafter, Respondent), upon the grounds of Betrayal of Public Trust, Culpable Violation of the Constitution, and Graft and Corruption, as follows:

The Complainants hereby accuse Respondent of numerous acts that comprise: (a) Betrayal of Public Trust; (b) Culpable Violation of the Constitution; and (c) Graft and Corruption, that render him absolutely unfit for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

SUMMARY OF THE IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT vs CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA I. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS TRACK RECORD MARKED BY PARTIALITY AND SUBSERVIENCE IN CASES INVOLVING THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION FROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WHICH CONTINUED TO HIS DUBIOUS APPOINTMENT AS A MIDNIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE AND UP TO THE PRESENT. Midnight Appointments in violation against Sec. 15, Article VII of Constitution Arturo de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council and President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et. al., SC held that the prohibition does not apply to SC but only to executive department and other courts lower than SC. Indeed, Newsbreak report showed that he has consistently sided with the (Arroyo) administration in politically-significant cases. Newsbreak further reported when it tracked the voting pattern of Supreme Court justices, Corona lodged a high 78 percent in favor of Arroyo A table shows that in 10 cases show respondent's voting pattern in cases involving Arroyo government's frontal assaults on constitutional rights prior to his appointment as Chief Justice. During his tenure as Chief Justice, Respondent also sided with Arroyo in the following 3 cases such as in (1) Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, (2) Bai Omera D. Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive(revoking midnight appointments) and (3) Aquino vs. COMELEC (redefining districts of CamSur) II. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDERSEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

 Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution. Some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act. Respondent is suspected of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits (among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in the Fort in Taguig). III. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BY FAILING TO MEET AND OBSERVE THE STRINGENT STANDARDS UNDER ART. VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT PROVIDES THAT [A] MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST BE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY, AND INDEPENDENCE IN ALLOWING THE SUPREME COURT TO ACT ON MERE LETTERS FILED BY A COUNSEL WHICH CAUSED THE ISSUANCE OF FLIP-FLOPPING DECISIONS IN FINAL AND EXECUTORY CASES; IN CREATING AN EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT WITH MRS. ARROYO THROUGH HER APPOINTMENT OF HIS WIFE TO OFFICE; AND IN DISCUSSING WITH LITIGANTS REGARDING CASES PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. Respondent previously served Arroyo as her chief of staff, spokesman when she was Vice-President, Presidential Chief-ofStaff, Presidential Spokesman, and Acting Executive Secretary. o Flip-flopping of the Corona Court on FASAP vs. PAL on a mere letter from Philippine Airlines counsel Atty. Estelito Mendoza (and also in the flip-flopping case of League of Cities v. COMELEC) Respondent compromised his independence when his wife, Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment as on March 23, 2007 from President Arroyo to the Board of the John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC) in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct o serious complaints were filed against Mrs. Corona by her fellow board members because of acts of misconduct and negligence. Instead, on acting on the complaint, the complainants were removed and Mrs. Corona promoted as OIC board chair Respondent has been reportedly using the judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to the Judiciary personal expenditures. Respondent Corona discussed with litigants (Lauro Vizconde and Dante Jimenez) regarding the Vizconde massacre case, which was then pending before the SC and accused fellow Justice Carpio for lobbying for acquittal, in violation of Code of Conduct and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act Respondent Corona irregularly dismissed the Inter-petal Recreational Corporation case under suspicious circumstances. IV. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS BY ISSUING A STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER AGAINST THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE IMPEACHMENT OF THEN OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ. Respondent railroaded the proceedings in the Guttierez case in order to have a Status Quo Ante Order issued in her favor. o Newsbreak showed that most of the justices received the Petition after the deliberations, while three (3) justices (Velasco, Bersamin and Perez) who voted to issue the Status Quo Ante Order received the petition a day after the status quo ante order was granted. Its issuance violated the principle of separation of powers since the Supreme Court prevented the House from initiating impeachment proceedings. V. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH WANTON ARBITRARINESS AND PARTIALITY IN CONSISTENTLY DISREGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA AND IN DECIDING IN FAVOR OF GERRY-MANDERING IN THE CASES INVOLVING THE 16 NEWLY-CREATED CITIES, AND THE PROMOTION OF DINAGAT ISLAND INTO A PROVINCE.

 Respondent violated the principle of the immutability of final judgments (flip-flopping) known to have been instigated through personal letters or ex-part ecommunications addressed to the Respondent: o League of Cities v. COMELEC case involving the creation of 16 new cities, o Navarro v. Ermita which involved the promotion of Dinagat Island from municipality to province o FASAP v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., et al. VI. Respondent Betrayed the Public Trust By Arrogating Unto Himself, And To A Committee He Created, The Authority And Jurisdiction To Improperly Investigate An Alleged Erring Member Of The Supreme Court For The Purpose Of Exculpating Him. Such Authority And Jurisdiction Is Properly Reposed By The Constitution In the House of Representatives via Impeachment. Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, it was alleged that rampant plagiarism was committed by the ponente, Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo It appears that, with a clear intent of exonerating a member of the Supreme Court, Respondent, in violation of the Constitution, formed an Ethics Committee thereby arrogating unto himself, and to a Committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to investigate an alleged member of the Supreme Court. VII. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS PARTIALITY IN GRANTING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) IN FAVOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HER HUSBAND JOSE MIGUEL ARROYO IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE PROSECUTION AND TO FRUSTRATE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AND IN DISTORTING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE TRO IN VIEW OF A CLEAR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S OWN TRO. The Supreme Court, under the Respondent, immediately acted upon the Petition and granted the TRO despite the fact that there are clear inconsistencies in former President Arroyo's petition It appears from reports that the ponente to whom the petitions were raffled was an Associate Justice. Under the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, a TRO can only be considered upon the recommendation of the ponente. In view of certain objections against the grant of the TRO, a holding of a hearing within the short period of five (5) days was recommended. Despite this recommendation, the respondent engineered a majority of 8 votes (as against five dissenters) the immediate grant and issuance of the TRO in favour of former President Arroyo and her husband in blatant violation of their own internal rules. Despite the conditions laid by the SC for the issuance of the TRO, Respondent allowed the issuance of the TRO notwithstanding the fact there was noncompliance of an essential pre-condition o Due to the Arroyos' abject failure to comply with Condition 2, the Supreme Court en banc in its November 18, 2011 deliberations, by a vote of 7 V6, found that there was no compliance with the second condition of the TRO. Consequently, for failure to comply with an essential condition for the TRO, the TRO is not effective. However, by a vote of 7-6, the Supreme Court decided there was no need to explicitly state the legal effect on the TRO of the noncompliance by petitioners with Condition Number 2 of the earlier Resolution. o However, the SC decided that the TRO was effective despite noncompliance with an essential condition of the TRO. It is notable that Respondent did not chastise Marquez for his outrightly false and public misrepresentation. Worse, the Respondent did not correct the decision that was issued despite the fact that the decision did not reflect the agreement and decision made by the Supreme Court during their deliberations on November 18, 2011. VIII. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPTION WHEN HE FAILED AND REFUSED TOACCOUNT FOR THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY (SAJ) COLLECTIONS.

 Respondent has reportedly Funds and the SAJ collections.

failed

and

refused

to

report

on

the

status

of

the

JDF

There is likewise the reported failure of Respondent to account for funds released and spent for unfilled positions in the judiciary and from authorized and funded but not created courts. o In particular, the annual audit report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines contained the observation that unremitted funds to the Bureau of Treasury amounted to P5.38 billion o the Special allowance for Judiciary along with the General Fund, Judiciary Development Fund in the amount of P559.5 Million were misstated resulting from delayed and/or non-preparation of bank reconciliation statements and non-recording /uncorrected reconciling items.

Short Words Complaints against Corona 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Betrayal of Public Trust due to subservience to Pampanga Rep. GMA during her presidency from the time of his appointment as SC justice to his midnight appointment as Chief Justice. Culpable violation of Constitution for non disclosure of SALN. Undue closenesss to GMA as shown by the appointment of Chief Justices wife to a seat in the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. Betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of Constitution when he issued a status quo order ante that had suspended the hearings of the House Justice committee on the impeachment case against previous Ombudsman Mercedita Gutierrez. Voting on the 16 Cityhood cases and the creation of province of Dinagat Creation of the ethics committee to look into the plagiarism case against SC Justice Mariano del Castillo, which resulted of clearing of Castillo of any liability. Temporary Restraining Order on the travel ban on Mrs. Arroyo. Refusal to account for Judicial Devt Fund, special allowances and other court collections. 9. Republic of the Philippines HOUSE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES Manila 10. 15th Congress 11. RULES OF PROCEDURE IN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 12. RULE I APPLICABILITY OF RULES Section 1. Applicability of Rules. - These Rules shall apply to all proceedings for impeachment in the House of Representatives against the President, Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust. 14. RULE II INITIATING IMPEACHMENT Section 2. Mode of Initiating Impeachment. - Impeachment shall be initiated by the filing and subsequent referral to the Committee on Justice of: * (a) a verified complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House of Representatives; or (b) a verified complaint filed by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof; or (c) a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third (1/3) of all Members of the House. Section 3. Filing and Referral of Verified Complaints. - A verified complaint for impeachment by a Member of the House or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof shall be filed with the office of the Secretary General and immediately referred to the Speaker. The Speaker shall have it included in the Order of Business within ten (10) session days from receipt. It shall then be referred to the Committee on Justice within three (3) session days thereafter. 21. RULE III FINDING A PROBABLE CAUSE 22. RULE IV VERIFIED COMPLAINT/RESOLUTION BY ONE-THIRD OF MEMBERS 23. RULE V BAR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT

13.

15.
16. 17. 18.

19.
20.

24. RULE VI PROSECUTOR IN ALL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 25. RULE VII APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Republic of the Philippines Congress of the Philippines Senate Pasay City Fifteenth Congress First Regular Session RESOLUTION NO. 39 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS Resolved by the Senate, To adopt, as it hereby adopts, the following: RULES OF PROCEDURE ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS I. When the Senate receives articles of impeachment pursuant to Article XI, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, the President of the Senate shall inform the House of Representatives that the Senate shall take proper order on the subject of impeachment and shall be ready to receive the prosecutors on such time and date as the Senate may specify. II. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside but shall not vote. Notice shall be given to him by the President of the Senate of the time and place fixed for the consideration of the articles of impeachment, with a request to attend. The Chief Justice shall be administered the oath or affirmation, prescribed under these Rules, by the President of the Senate and shall preside over the Senate during the consideration of said articles and upon the trial of the person impeached. The President of the Senate shall preside in all other cases of impeachment and, for that purpose, placed under the prescribed oath or affirmation by any person authorized by law to administer an oath. III. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer the prescribed oath or affirmation to the Members of the Senate then present and to the other Members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same. Upon presentation of the articles to the Senate, the Senate shall specify the date and time for the consideration of such articles. Unless the Senate provides otherwise, it shall continue in session from day to day (except Saturdays, Sundays, and nonworking holidays) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be necessary. Senators shall observe political neutrality during the course of the impeachment trial. Political neutrality shall be defined as exercise of public officials duty without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference. IV. The Presiding Officer shall have the power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, and writs authorized by these Rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide. P. S. Res. No. 432 V. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, under the direction of the President of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, and writs of the Senate. VI. The President of the Senate or the Chief Justice when presiding on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of materiality, relevancy, competency or admissibility of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless a Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision after one contrary view is expressed; or the Presiding Officer may at his/her option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. The motion for a vote and the contrary opinion shall not take more than two (2) minutes each, with a one minute rebuttal allowed for the proponent of the motion. The provisions of the Rules of the Senate and the revised Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily whenever applicable. VII. Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided, a writ of summons shall be issued to the person impeached, reciting or incorporating said articles, and notifying him/her to appear before the Senate upon a day and at a place

to be fixed by the Senate and named in such writ, and to file his/her Answer to said articles of impeachment within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt thereof; to which the prosecutors may Reply within a non-extendible period of five (5) days therefrom; and to stand to and abide by the orders and judgments of the Senate. Such writ shall be served by such officer or person named in the order thereof, not later than three (3) days prior to the day fixed for such appearance of the person impeached, either by the delivery of an attested copy thereof to the person impeached, or if personal service cannot be done, service of the writ may be made by leaving a copy with a person of sufficient age and discretion at his/her last known address or at his/her office or place of business; and if the service of such writ shall fail the proceedings shall not thereby abate, but further service may be made in such manner as the Senate shall direct. If the person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear, either in person or by counsel, on the day so fixed or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed nevertheless as upon a plea of not guilty. If a plea of guilty shall be entered, judgment may be entered thereon without further proceedings. VIII. At the date and time designated by the Senate for the return of the summons against the person impeached, the Secretary of the Senate shall administer the following oath or affirmation to the returning officer: I, __________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that the return made by me upon the process issued on the _______ day of ______________, by the Senate of the Philippines, against ________ __________ was truly made, and that I have performed such service as therein described: (So help me God). Which oath or affirmation shall be entered at large on the records. IX. The person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him/her. If he/she appears, or any person for him/her, the appearance shall be recorded, stating particularly if by himself/herself, or by agent or counsel, naming the person appearing and the capacity in which he/she appears. If he/she does not appear, either personally or by agent or counsel, the same shall be recorded. X. At 2 oclock in the afternoon, or at such other hour as the Senate may order, of the day appointed for the trial of an impeachment, the legislative business of the Senate, if there be any, shall be suspended, and the Secretary of the Senate shall give notice to the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed upon the impeachment trial of ________ _________, in the Senate Chamber. XI. Unless otherwise fixed by the Senate, the hour of the day at which the Senate shall sit upon the trial of an impeachment shall be 2 oclock in the afternoon; and when the hour shall arrive, the Presiding Officer upon such trial shall cause proclamation to be made, and the business of the trial shall proceed. The adjournment of the Senate sitting in said trial shall not operate as an adjournment of the Senate as a legislative body. XII. The Secretary of the Senate shall record the proceedings in cases of impeachment as in the case of legislative proceedings, and the same shall be reported in the same manner as the legislative proceedings of the Senate. XIII. Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and be heard upon an impeachment: Provided, That counsel for the prosecutors shall be under the control and supervision of the panel of prosecutors of the House of Representatives. XIV. All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to admission of evidence or other questions arising during the trial) made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed to the Presiding Officer only, and if he, or any Senator, shall require it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the Secretarys table. XV. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them, and then cross-examined by one person on the other side. XVI. If a Senator is called as a witness, he/she shall be sworn, and give his/her testimony standing in his/her place. XVII. If a Senator wishes to put a question to a witness, he/she shall do so within two (2) minutes. A Senator may likewise put a question to a prosecutor or counsel. He/she may also offer a motion or order, in writing, which shall be submitted to the Presiding Officer. XVIII. At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial of an impeachment the doors of the Senate shall be open to the public. Silence shall be observed by the visitors at all times, on pain of eviction from the trial venue. The Presiding Officer and the Members of the Senate shall refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial. The same shall likewise apply to the prosecutors, to the person impeached, and to their respective counsel and witnesses. XIX. All preliminary or interlocutory questions, and all motions, shall be argued for not exceeding one hour on each side, unless the Senate otherwise orders. XX. The case, on each side, shall be opened by one person. The final argument on the merits

may be made by two (2) persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate upon application for that purpose), and the argument shall be opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives. XXI. The trial of all the articles of impeachment shall be completed before the Senators vote on the final question on whether or not the impeachment is sustained. On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the vote shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of all the Members, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person impeached in such articles of impeachment shall be convicted upon any of said articles by the votes of two-thirds of all the Members, the Senate shall proceed to pronounce judgment of conviction, and a certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order. Form of putting the question on each article of impeachment. The Presiding Officer shall first state the question. Thereafter, each Senator, as his/her name is called, shall rise in his/her place and answer: guilty or not guilty. The vote of the President of the Senate on each article of impeachment, when acting as the presiding officer, shall be last taken after all the Senators have stated their votes. If he/she so wishes, a Senator may explain his/her vote for not more than two (2) minutes. XXII. All the orders and decisions may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the orders and decisions shall be voted on without debate by yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record, subject, however, to the operation of Rule VI, and in that case no Member shall speak more than once on one question, and for not more than ten (10) minutes on an interlocutory question, and for not more than fifteen (15) minutes on the final question, unless by consent of the Senate, to be had without debate; but a motion to adjourn may be decided without the yeas and nays, unless they be demanded by one-fifth of the Members present. The fifteen minutes herein allowed shall be for the whole deliberation on the final question, and not on the final question on each article of impeachment. XXIII. Witnesses shall be sworn in the following form: You _______________, do swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and ________ _________, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: (so help you God). Which oath or affirmation shall be administered by the Secretary of the Senate, or any other duly authorized person.