Impeachement of a Former Chief Justice Its Effects to the Court Employees in Batangas City

8/10/2019 Impeachement of a Former Chief Justice Its Effects to the Court Employees in Batangas City

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/impeachement-of-a-former-chief-justice-its-effects-to-the-court-employees-in 1/39

Impeachment of a Former Chief Justice: Its Effects to the

Court Employees in Batangas City

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the

College of Education Arts and Sciences

Lyceum of the Philippines University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Arts in Paralegal Studies

By:

Guico, Katherine Mae L.

Areta, Marc Kevin G.

Lopez, Eunice P.

Matubis, Mary Joy F.

Dr. Ma. Rosario Tamayo

2013



Approval Sheet

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degreeBachelor of Arts in Paralegal Studies is hereby recommended forfinal defense.This thesis entitled “Impeachment of a Former ChiefJustice: Its Effects to the Court Employees in Batangas City ”

prepared by Marc Kevin G. Areta, Katherine Mae L. Guico, EuniceP. Lopez, and Mary Joy F. Matubis

____________________________Dr. Ma. Rosario Tamayo

Research Adviser

Defended an Oral Examination before a duly constitutedpanel with a grade of ____________________.

___________________________Atty. Anunciacion Bernardo

Chairman

_______________________ _____________________Dr. Imelda An Ms. Annalie Pateña

Member Member

______________________ Dr. Amada G. Banaag

Member

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts in Paralegal Studies.

________________________Dr. Amada G. Banaag Dean, CEAS

Table of Contents

Abstract 1Introduction 2Objectives of the Study 5Review of Related Literature 6

Methods 32Research Design 32Participants of the Study 32Instruments 33Procedure 33Data Analysis 34

Results and Discussion 35Conclusions 46Recommendations 46

References 48

Appendices i-xx

Authors’ Information



List of TablesTable 1

Percentage Distribution of the 36Respondents’ Profile

Table 2

Effects of Impeachment of Former 38Chief Justice as Perceived by the Employees

Table 3Difference of Responses on the Effects of the 44Impeachment of Former Chief Justice WhenGrouped According to Profile Variables

List of Appendices Appendix A

Letter to the Dean i

Appendix BLetter to the Executive Judge ii

Appendix CQuestionnaire iii

Appendix DStatistical Output viii



Abstract

This paper investigated the Impeachment of a Former ChiefJustice: Its Effects to the Court Employees in Batangas City. Theresult revealed that the respondents agree that the most observedeffect of is that the impeachment led to a more strict compliance ofgovernment officials in the declaration of their Statement of Assets,Liabilities and Net Worth or SALN. The respondents disagreedhowever that the impeachment reduced foreign investments anddiminished the people’s trust to the judiciary . Moreover, theemployees’ perception on the effects varies to the level of thei rseniority (years) in the office.

From the results gathered, suggestions have been formulated.First, the Commission on Audit may adopt an efficient policy to ensure

that public officials are diligently observing the constitutional provisionembodied in Article XI, Section 17 of the 1987 Philippine Constitutionmandating the declaration of their SALNs. Being the Highest Tribunalof the country, the Judiciary, may initiate measures to always maintainthe constitutional provision under Article XI, Section 1 of theConstitution that public office is a public trust. The Code of Conductand Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, otherwiseknown as RA 6713, may be amended to impose higher criteria for

public officials and employees in the discharge of the duties requiredof them. Future researchers may come up with a thorough study onthe effects of the impeachment of the Former Chief Justice usingother variables to further scrutinize the other effects of this significant

part of our political history.

Keywords: impeachment, Chief Justice, public trust, SALN

Effects of the Impeachment 1



Public trust is the most inevitable pillar and indispensablefoundation of public office. It is the defining quality that isexpected of a public official. Further, it is the soul of a publicoffice, without it, the latter is like a lifeless body, futile andunresponsive. In fact, the very essence of a free governmentconsists in considering offices as public trusts, bestowed for the

good of the country, and not for the benefit of an individual orparty. The concept of public trust relates back to the originsof democratic government and its seminal idea that within thepublic lies the true power and future of a society. Consequently,whatever trust the public places in its officials must be respected.Once this trust is tainted with faithlessness and perfidy, one hasto be accounted for and if necessary, be removed from thepublic office to redeem said office and institution from furthercorruption so that genuine reform is initiated and public trust beregained.

Impeachment is a process by which a legislative body

formally levels charges against a high government official. Itdoes not always result in a public official's removal from office. An impeachment is only a formal statement of charges, muchlike an indictment in criminal law. Therefore, an impeachedperson is not necessarily considered guilty as he or she hasonly been formally charged with an impeachable offense.Impeachment is only the first step to remove a governmentofficial. A public official, once impeached, must face thepossibility of conviction through a legislative vote. An officialmay only be removed from office if convicted. The grounds forimpeachment are not necessarily always criminal offenses.They are, in nature, political offenses that arise from the

misconduct of public officials and the abuse or violation of publictrust (De Leon, 2005). Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987Philippine Constitution provides that the President, Vice

President, members of the Supreme Court, Members of theConstitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman may beremoved from position through impeachment should they beconvicted of "culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes, or betrayalof public trust.

Among the impeachable officials are the members of theSupreme Court. The Supreme Court of the Philippines is thehighest judicial body in the country. Being so, its primacy overthe interpretation of the laws as well as the giving of legal ordersis undisputed and is given weight in the country. In addition, thecourts inferior to the Supreme Court looked up therein as therole model in the highest pursuit of the administration of justice.Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 6 of 1987 Philippine Constitution,the Supreme Court has administrative supervision over allcourts and the personnel thereof. One of the legal entitiesgoverned and directed by the Supreme Court is the Hall of

Justice in Batangas City or more popularly known as theBulwagan ng Katarungan.

The Bulwagan ng Katarungan in Batangas City wasestablished under the Justice System Infrastructure Program ofthe former President Fidel V. Ramos, as implemented by theinter-agency committee composed of the then Secretary ofJustice, Franklin Drilon, as chairman and former Secretary ofthe Interior and Local Government, Rafael Alunan III, andformer Secretary of Public Works and Highways, GregorioVigillar, as members. Moreover, the Hall of Justice in BatangasCity is the combination of Municipal Trial Court in Cities and the

Regional Trial Court having two and seven branches,respectively. The different offices in the Bulwagan ng

Effects of the Impeachment 3Effects of the Impeachment 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_government



Katarungan is under the direction of either judicial or executivebranch (De La Vega, Tan, Dalida, Panganiban, 2005).

All lawyers and personnel working under the supervisionof the Supreme Court, including those in the Hall of Justice inBatangas City, are bound to uphold the 1987 Philippine

Constitution and obey the existing laws in the country with theend in view of consoling that justice is served to anyone withoutdiscrimination and that the legal profession is always placed inhigh esteem and regard. Thus, the Constitution entrusts uponthe Supreme Court that justice be served fairly and justly all thetime. This mandate is clearly vested upon the shoulders of the judges especially the Chief Justice being the highest reservedJustice of the Supreme Court.

Every human being is responsible for one’s actions. TheConstitution sets higher standards of accountability for publicofficials as embodied in the Constitution, more for judges and

the greatest reserved for Justices of the Supreme Court.However, there are things in this world that are characterizedwith so much irony such that the same criterion sanctioned bythe Constitution for public officials to abide is questioned aswhat happened on December 12, 2011, an unforgettable date inthe entire history of the Philippines.

The conviction of the former Chief Justice Corona wasone of the major turning points in the entire Philippine history. Itwas the first time that the Highest Magistrate of the Land wasimpeached more so convicted for culpably violating theConstitution and betraying the public’s trust. It retained different

impacts and produced various effects to the country and thepeople. The group deemed it necessary to scrutinize the effectsof the impeachment of Corona as it was like an earthquake

which has left numerous aftermaths especially to the peoplecomprising the justice system, some of them are the CourtEmployees of the Hall of Justice in Batangas City or Bulwaganng Katarungan. Considering that the Judiciary is one of the mostindispensable governmental institutions in the Philippines, suchimpacts and effects must also be divulged to the community so

that the latter will be informed of this significant part in ourpolitical history. Having knowledge of the impeachment’s effectswill heighten the essence of being a democratic society of thePhilippines.

As aspiring lawyers and agents of the law, knowing theeffects of the impeachment will serve as a guide in fulfilling theduty of being a minister of justice and upholding the requireddignity of the legal profession. In addition, as aspiring publicservants, who will owe it to the public a beholden duty of publicaccountability, the effects of the impeachment will be an avenueto uplift the principle that public office is a public trust.

Objectives of the Study

The study aims to determine the effects of theimpeachment of the former Chief Justice to the CourtEmployees in Batangas City.

More specifically, to describe the profile of therespondents; to identify the effects of the impeachment and; todetermine the difference in the effects of the impeachment whengrouped according to profile variables.

Effects of the Impeachment 4 Effects of the Impeachment 5



Hypothesis

There is no significant difference on the effects ofimpeachment when respondents are group according to lengthof government service.

Review of Literature

Impeachment

As defined by De Leon (2005), impeachment is a criminalproceeding against a public officer before a quasi-political court,instituted by a written accusation called articles of impeachment,on a particular charge specified by law. It is a process by whicha legislative body formally levels charges against a highgovernment official. Thus, an impeachment is only a formalstatement of charges, much like an indictment in criminal law. An impeached person is not necessarily considered guilty as he

or she has only been formally charged with an impeachableoffense. Impeachment is only the first step to remove agovernment official. Once impeached, a public official must facethe possibility of conviction through a legislative vote.

By the process of an impeachment case, the legislativemay adopt a criminal proceeding, but it is strictly a non-criminalcase, impeachment is an administrative case, which penalty isremoval from office. The grounds for impeachment are notnecessarily always criminal offenses. They are, in nature,political offenses that arise from the misconduct of publicofficials and the abuse or violation of public trust. An

impeachment proceeding is neither criminal nor civil in nature. Itis sui generis, meaning “of a class by itself.”

Impeachment is a process of investigating, prosecuting,and deciding the case at bar. Impeachment, however, may ormay not result in a conviction of the respondent. The aim ofimpeachment as shield of abuses by high officials is essentiallythe protection of the people from unscrupulous public officerswho may stand above the law. Impeachment is pursued for the

promotion of the interest of the State from grave blunder andexploitation. The Rules on Civil Procedure and the Rules onCriminal Procedure cannot be applied absolutely toimpeachment proceedings. However, certain rights such as theright to due process and the right against self-incrimination areguaranteed.

Under Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 PhilippineConstitution, the President, the Vice-President, the Members ofthe Supreme Court, the Members of the ConstitutionalCommissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed fromoffice on impeachment. All other public officers and employees

may be removed from office as provided by law, but not byimpeachment.

The grounds for impeachment are culpable violation ofthe Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, otherhigh crimes, betrayal of public trust as enumerated by De Leon(2005).

Culpable violation of the constitution, for purposes ofimpeachment, is defined as the deliberate and wrongful breachof the Constitution. However, the violation of the Constitutionmade unintentionally, in good faith, and mere mistakes in the

proper construction of the Constitution do not constitute animpeachable offense. Consequently, Article XI, Section 17 ofthe 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly provides that, a public




officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and asoften thereafter as may be required by law; submit a declarationunder oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case ofthe President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet,the Congress, the Supreme Court, the ConstitutionalCommissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the

armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall bedisclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.

The Revised Penal Code expressly provides that treasonis commited by any Filipino citizen who levies war against thePhilippines or adheres to her enemies, giving them aid orcomfort within the Philippines or elsewhere. Bribery waslikewise defined as one of the enumerated impeachableoffenses, in two forms. Direct bribery is committed by any publicofficer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, inconnection with the performance of these official duties, inconsideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by

such officer, personally or through the mediation of another. Onthe other hand, indirect bribery is committed by a public officerwhen he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office.

Any violation of the Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is an impeachable offense. Inaddition, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust is also animpeachable offense. In Francisco Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit namga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., theSupreme Court purposely refused to define the meaning of“other high crimes or betrayal of public trust,” saying that it is “anon-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of its

judicial power.” However, the Court refuses to name whichagency can define it; the Court impliedly gives the power to the

House of Representatives, which initiates all cases ofimpeachment.

Article XI, Section 3 (1) of the 1987 PhilippineConstitution expressly provides that the House ofRepresentatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all

cases of impeachment. In the same vein, the Senate shall havethe sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath oraffirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, theChief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall notvote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence oftwo-thirds of all the Members of the Senate as provided by Article XI, Section 3 (6) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.Moreover, Section 3(7) of the same article provides that judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further thanremoval from office and disqualification to hold any office underthe Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall

nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, andpunishment, according to law.

In the matter of Raul Gonzales, 160 Supreme CourtReports Annotated 771, the Supreme Court held that theMembers of the Supreme Court can only be removed byimpeachment and this procedure cannot be abbreviated by filingcriminal or administrative proceedings against them. TheSpecial Prosecutor is without authority to conduct aninvestigation on charges against members of the SupremeCourt with the end in view of filing criminal information againstthem with the Sandiganbayan. This rule rests on the

fundamental principles of judicial independence and separation.




Impeachment, by its nature, involves political offensesthat arise from the misconduct of public officials and the abuseor violation of public trust. Under Article XI, Section 1 of the1987 Philippine Constitution, public office is a public trust. Publicofficers and employees must at all times be accountable to thepeople, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty,

and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modestlives. It is not to be understood as a position of honor, prestigeand power but a position of rendering service to the public.

Public office is the right, authority, and duty created andconferred by law by which for a given period either fixed by lawor enduring at pleasure of the appointing power, an individual isinvested with the some portion of the sovereign functions of thegovernment to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.The term “public office is a public trust” means that a publicofficer holds office coterminous with the trust reposed on him bythe public.

Public officers and employees occupy office to renderservice to the people and not as a means to promote theirpersonal interests or political ambitions as stated by De Leon(2010). They are mere servants and not rulers of the people.They are elected and appointed, in fact, to serve and not to beserved. De Leon also said that everyone who is in the employ ofthe State is rightfully assumed to bear in mind that he is there toadvance ends and that the only justification for his continuancein such service is his ability to contribute to the public welfare orthe common good. He holds a sacred trust. It is in this sensethat public office is a public trust. This constitutional declaration

also enunciates the principle of public accountability. It setsdown in unequivocal terms the mandate that all governmentofficials and employees, whether they be the highest in the land

or the lowest public servants, shall at all times be answerablefor their misconduct to the people from whom the governmentderives its power. De Leon further added that the maintenanceof public trust is essential to the general welfare and necessaryto the preservation of the government, that public affairs beproperly administered. Indeed, no popular government can

survive without the confidence of the people. It is the loneguarantee and justification for its existence.

The constitutional mandate that public office is a publictrust is deemed necessary as it will always serve as a reminderto public offices of the sacred character of their tasks and awarning that violation thereof would be nothing less than asacrilege. To reiterate, any government office is a trust for it iscreated for the sole purpose of effecting the end for which thegovernment has been instituted, which is the common good andnot for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man,family, or class of men. Moreover, public interest demands not

only that he keeps faith with the trust reposed upon him but alsothat he should be above suspicion. It is precisely to guard thefiduciary nature of the public office that the Constitution places.

Lazo (2006) articulated that public officers shall bebeholden to his office. The office itself connotes service andaccountability and in no way would he treat the office as anopportunity to enrich oneself and perpetuate his vested interest.Public office is not a property in which one can claim jurisdictionbut it is a position to render service upon which on shall displayintegrity, efficiency and patriotism. Lazo further articulated thatofficers and employees constitute the core of public service. In

this respect, an officer is regarded the head of a public office,one who has the authority and command to exercise the powersand functions of the office he represents. It involves the exercise




of one’s discretion in the discharge of the functions entrusted tohim by the government and its people. To be more accurate, anemployee refers to any person in the service of the governmentor any of its instrumentalities. He is ordinarily a servant who actson the basis of order, directives and perform roles to which he isassigned in the bureaucracy.

Dannug and Campanilla (2004) said that governmentofficials are accountable to the people simply because theirpowers emanate from the people. The people merely entrustgovernmental powers and authority to government officers, andtherefore, their relationship is that of trustor and trustee. Astrustees, the executive, legislative and judicial officials areresponsible and liable to the people as trustor, if they exercisegovernmental powers in abuse of the trust reposed in them or inany other manner inconsistent with the popular interest. As animplement to the principle of accountability, the Constitutionestablishes impeachment proceedings, creates the Office of the

Ombudsman, recognizes the Sandiganbayan, provides for thesequestration of ill-gotten properties, and disclosure of assetsand liabilities.

A great jurist as quoted by De Leon (2005) once statedthat a popular government is a magnificent three storey building.The basic foundation is the people. The first storey is theConstitution which is the expression of their sovereignty. Thesecond is the officialdom or a group of caretakers of the edificeand the third and highest storey is found in the altar whereinzealously kept and guarded the mystic fire which symbolizes thefaith of the people. Collapse of the foundation means

destruction of the entire building; collapse of the first storeynecessarily the collapse of the 2nd and the 3rd stories and theconsequent reversion to the architectonic wisdom of the people;

collapse of the second storey officialdom because of themisdeed or disloyalty is the demolition of the faith of the people;and without faith no popular government can ever hope to liveand survive.

Under Section 1, Article II of the Constitution, the

Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereigntyresides in the people and all government authority emanatesfrom them. In addition to this, Philippine government is also apresidential one. According to Bernardo and Ramos (2009), apresidential form of government is one in which the chiefexecutive is constitutionally independent from the legislature asregards his tenure and to a large extent as regards his policiesand acts. Its principal identifying feature is the separation ofpowers. This separate assignment of powers differentindependent and co-equal organs of government, as assertedby Dannug and Campanilla (2003), is a basic concept under theConstitution.

Legislative power is given to the legislature whosemembers hold office for a fixed term, executive power is givento a separate executive who also holds office for a fixed term,and judicial power is held by the independent judiciary. Thesystem is founded on the belief that, by establishing equilibriumamong the three power holders, harmony would then result,political power would not be concentrated, and thus tyrannywould be avoided (Bernardo and Ramos, 2009).

One basic principle that underlies the three departmentsof government is the principle of separation of powers. It is

essential to the operation of the presidential system that thedepartments or branches of governments shall not encroachupon the powers of each other. It means that each branch must




exercise its powers without intruding into the exercise of thepowers of the other branches, for they are independent andcoordinate. Dannug and Campanilla (2003) said that theobservance of the principle of separation of powers is amanifestation of republicanism. In the case of US vs. Ang TangHo,43 PHIL 1, it was stated that by the organic law of the

Philippine Islands and the Constitution of the United States allpowers are vested in the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. Itis the duty of the Legislature to make the law; of the Executiveto execute the law; and of the Judiciary to construe the law. TheLegislature has no authority to execute or construe the law, theExecutive has no authority to make or construe the law, and theJudiciary has no power to make or execute the law. Subject tothe Constitution only, the power of each branch is supremewithin its own jurisdiction, and it is for the Judiciary only to saywhen any Act of the Legislature is or is not constitutional.

There are instances where the principle of blending ofpowers is in action. In the enactment of a law, the Congresspasses the bill, the President signs it into law. In theappointment of certain officers, the President recommends andthe Commission on Appointments approves the same. Further,in the treaty-making power of the President, the Senate ratifies it(Alabano, 2008).

The Constitution also provides a system of check andbalance to secure coordination in the workings of the variousdepartments of the government, by having one check on theacts of another. The system of check and balance iscomplementary to the doctrine of separation of powers. Asenumerated by Bernardo and Ramos (2009), among the

purposes of the Principle of Checks and Balances are toprevent encroachment of power, thus preserving the will of thesovereign expressed in the Constitution and to restrain

impulsive, hasty and improvident action of one branch, exceptwhere full discretionary authority has been delegated to it by theConstitution. The idea of allotting power to different segments ofsociety is to pave the way for a system wherein each branchmay check or counterbalance the other (Dannug andCampanilla, 2003).

As stated by the Supreme Court in Abueva vs. Wood, 45Phil 612, if the courts could intervene in the administration of theother independent departments or government, or vice versa,they would break away from those checks and balances ofgovernment which are meant, under our system of government,to be checks of cooperative and not of antagonism or mastery,and would concentrate in their own hands something, at least,of the power which the people, either directly to entrust to theother departments of the government. Under the form ofgovernment established by the United States in the PhilippineIslands, one department of the government has no power or

authority to inquire into the acts of another, which acts areperformed within the discretion of the other department. Theabsurdity of any other rule is manifest upon the slightestmeditation. The judicial, executive and legislative departmentsof government are distinct and independent, and neither isresponsible to the other for the performance of its duties, andneither can enforce the performance of the duties of the other.The dangers and difficulties which would grow out of theadoption of a contrary rule would be destructive of theharmonious relation of the different departments of government,and lead to confusion and disorder. Each of the threedepartments of government has separate and distinct functions

to perform. No one department of government can and ever hasclaimed a greater zeal than the others in its desire to promotethe welfare of the individual citizen and to protect his rights. No




one department of the government can claim that it has amonopoly of these benign purposes of the government.

The balance of the powers of government provided for inthe constitution as well as in the charter of the PhilippineGovernment was not the result of chance. The various parts didnot fall into place merely through the vicissitudes of

circumstance. They were devised by careful foresight; each in ameasure dependent upon the others and not possessed of somuch independence as to give freedom and courage in theexercise of their functions. Each was to move within itsrespective spheres as the bodies of the celestial system marchalong the pathways of the heaven. It is a fundamental rule ofconstitutional law that no department of government has powerto perform nor to assist in performing the functions of another(Alabano, 2008).

Each department of the government has an exclusivefield within which it can perform its part within certain

discretionary limits. No other department can claim a right toenter these discretionary limits and assume to act there.

Some examples of the system of checks and balancesare when the President can perform certain judicial acts, bycreating courts-martial, and by disapproving and setting asidetheir findings and punishment. The President exercises part ofthe legislative power because his consent is required for theenactment of all laws of Congress. However, his veto can beoverridden by Congress. In addition, the Senate through theCommission on Appointments participates in the executivefunction of appointment. Another example is when the Senate

also participates in the executive function of making treaties, byratifying them. The Senate also exercises the judicial power of

trying impeachment cases, and the House of Representativesby filing the articles of impeachment (Alabano, 2008).

One of the most indispensable foundations of thegovernment, where the public placed its trust, is the judiciary. According to Lazo (2009), the judiciary department is the

agency of the government that interprets the laws. It is thebranch of the government that is empowered to adjudicate legaldisputes or cases. Under the Constitution of the Philippines, atleast, the department shall enjoy independence, and as possibleshall be insulted from partisan politics.

The chief function of a judge is to interpret or construct alaw, and applies it on appropriate cases brought before him. A judge should stand independent and non political. This isguarantee that when a judge manifests independence he showsa separation between politics and law. Thus, a judge must beneutral. He should be devoid of partisan politics or commitment

and should refuse to take sides. In democratic states, judgesare expected to promote and observe strict political neutrality.

Hence, justices and judges are appointed based onintegrity and unquestionable probity only to carry out their mainresponsibilities in adjudicating and reviewing any question aboutthe laws. In addition, Article VIII, Section 7, Subparagraph 3 ofthe 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity,probity and independence.

Cases of Impeachment

Prior to the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona,former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Ombudsman




Merceditas Gutierrez were high government officials who weresubjected to an impeachment trial in the Philippines. PresidentEstrada’s impeachment led to the infamous People Power II.Erap was forced to leave the Malacanang Palace. Hecontended that the presiding officer, former Chief Justice HilarioDavide committed many abuses when the impeachment caseshould have been dismissed for failure to prosecute. Erap’ssentiment was that Corona was more fortunate than himbecause the latter was given due process. He believed that theSupreme Court, which is supposed to give justice to every man,denied him justice by ruling that he had resigned. He assertedthat he never resigned but the Supreme Court said that it was a“constructive resignation”, term that the latter invented and usedfor the first time in Erap’s case (www.sunstar.com.ph/manila).

As for the United States experience, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives votes 11 articles of impeachment againstPresident Andrew Johnson, nine of which cite Johnson's

removal of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, a violation of theTenure of Office Act. The House vote made President Johnsonthe first president to be impeached in U.S. history. Johnson wasimpeached and his impeachment trial began in the Senateunder the direction of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice SalmonP. Chase (www.history.com/this-day-in-history).

Other than former President Andrew Johnson, the U.S.Congress' Judiciary Committee have to make a decision onwhether or not to impeach, censure, or take no action againstPresident Clinton for his misconduct while in office. IndependentCounsel Kenneth Starr reported to Congress that he found

evidence that the President lied under oath before a federalgrand jury, about a relationship he had with a young WhiteHouse intern. Lying under oath before a court of law is a crime

called perjury. Congress must debate whether the President didcommit perjury and whether or not perjury is a reason toimpeach the President. The President is a federal employee and,as such, he should be held accountable for his actions as everyother employee. No President is above the law. Therefore theseare the reasons why some people choose to vote for theimpeachment of President Clinton(www.customessaymeister.com/customessays).

Over a long period, Sri Lanka has been engaged in thelarge scale practice of enforced disappearances of persons.This practice which has gone on for several decades has had aseriously paralyzing influence on the entire system of justice.Now, the stage has been set for the destruction of theindependence of judicial institutions altogether. Theseinstitutions have a history going back to 1802 when the SriLanka's first Supreme Court was instituted. It is this legacy thatis now being seriously challenged. In a recent published bookby a senior lawyer, S.L. Gunasekara entitled Lore of the Lawand other Memories, the author quotes a prediction by anotherwell known lawyer, D.S. Wijesinghe, President's Council, "Wenow have a new Parliament and with it democracy vanished.We are now about to get a new Superior Courts Complex andwith that justice will vanish". With this attempt to file animpeachment on the incumbent Chief Justice this prophecy maycome to a complete realization (www.humanrights.asia/news).

While there are usual noises from some quartersprotesting the impeachment move, there still does not seem tobe a full grasp of the threat that the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka is faced with by the Bar Association of SriLanka or the legal profession. The end of the independence ofthe judiciary also means the end of the legal profession as anindependent profession. The lawyers lose significant when the


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history


http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-





possibility of the protection of the dignity and the freedom of theindividual is no longer possible. It is perhaps the last chanceavailable for everyone including the judiciary itself and the legalprofession to fight back from the ultimate threat to theindependence of the judiciary and the possibility of theprotection of the dignity and the freedom of the individual in SriLanka. Many years of cumulative neglect has led to thepossibility of the executive being able to come to a position tomake a final assault against any challenge by way of demandfor justice. Unless the gravity of this threat is fully grasped, SriLanka will soon become like some countries which no longerhave independent institutions to protect individual liberties. Theimpeachment of the CJ has therefore several purposes. One isto remove the present CJ and replace her with a friend of theexecutive and the second is to have a chilling effect on all other judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Themessage is simple: anyone who will abide by the mandate toprotect the dignity and the freedom of the individual as against

the dictates of the executive is clearly not wanted among thehighest judiciary (Human Rights Asia News, 2012).

Sri Lanka faced a possible constitutional crisis on after itsparliament voted to impeach the chief justice, disregardingrulings from the Supreme Court that the process was illegal andthreatened judicial independence. The move has caused anoutcry among opposition lawmakers, religious leaders andlawyers, prompted the United States and United Nations tovoice concern for the integrity of justice in the South Asian state,and may alarm foreign investors. "This impeachment calls intoquestion issues about the separation of powers in Sri Lanka and

the impact of its absence on democratic institutions," the U.S.Embassy said in a statement (www.dailystar.com.lb/News).

From the United States’ perspective, the impeachment ofChief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake raises serious questionsabout the separation of powers in Sri Lanka, which is afundamental tenet of a healthy democracy. Throughout theseproceedings, it was repeatedly conveyed to the Government ofSri Lanka a concern that there was a lack of due process, and itwas also made very clear the view that actions undermining anindependent judiciary would impact on Sri Lanka’s ability toattract foreign investment (www.dailymirror.lk/news).

Romanian politicians impeached PresidentTraianBăsescu in an overwhelming vote, paving the way for anational referendum that could see the divisive and increasinglyunpopular leader ousted from the position he's held for eightyears. Upon hearing of the impeachment, hundreds ofRomanians rallied in central Bucharest to cheer the news, whileothers gathered to express their disappointment. Băsescuvowed late on Friday to use "all constitutional resources" to stay

in office for his full five-year term, which ends in 2014, andcalled his impeachment "an abuse". The European Commission,the executive body of the EU, on Friday called on Ponta'sgovernment to respect the independence of the judiciary andthe rule of law, calling them "the cornerstones of Europeandemocracy" and essential for "mutual trust" within the EU. TheUS ambassador, Mark H Gitenstein, has also expressedconcern about threats to the "independence of democraticinstitutions" in Romania (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world).

Effects of Impeachment

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, the 23rd Chief Justice ofthe Philippine Supreme Court, is one of the youngestmagistrates ever to be appointed to the Supreme Court of the


http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/06/romania-president-impeached




http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/



Philippines. He was appointed to the highest tribunal on April 9,2002 as the 150th member of the Supreme Court. His agenotwithstanding, he brings with him depth and perspectivegained from many years of experience as a law professor,private law practitioner and member of the Cabinet under twoPresidents, Fidel V. Ramos and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo(sc.judiciary.gov.ph/cjcorona.php).

On December 12, 2011, 188 of the 285 members of theHouse of Representatives signed an impeachment complaintagainst the then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. There wereeight Articles of Impeachment lodged by the House ofRepresentatives against Corona. After five long months of theimpeachment trial, the Senate, acting as the ImpeachmentCourt, convicted Corona(www.coronaimpeachment101.wordpress.com/category).

In Quismundo’s column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer

(2011), the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) pointed outthat the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice RenatoCorona suffers from fatal constitutional infirmities and defects inform and substance. They added that breakneck speed bywhich the impeachment complaint against Corona wasapproved violated the constitutional guarantee of separation ofpowers and judicial independence. The IBP also said that thecomplaint was discriminatory against Corona and an act ofpersecution, as it was allowed to push through even as itthreatens to disrupt constitutional balance. It is noticed that theimpeachment train in the House of Representatives began afterPresident Aquino’s very public display of displeasure over the

Corona-led Supreme Court, accusing it of promulgatingdecisions allegedly favorable to detained former PresidentGloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Consequently, the lawyers’ group

questioned why the members of Congress had singled outCorona for impeachment when high court rulings are decidedcollegially. Roan Libarios, president of the IBP, read the latter’sstatement that by impeaching the Chief Justice based oncollegial decision, the 188 Congressmen have in effectarrogated upon themselves the power to interpret the laws,which is a clear violation of separation of powers and judicialindependence. It further said the move against Corona wasdiscriminatory and a clear and patent display of disregard for therule of law. In the same vein, the threat from a prosecutor toimpeach the eight justices for issuing a TRO on the disclosureof CJ’s dollar accounts exemplifies IBP’s stand that theseparation of powers doctrine and the judiciary’s independenceare undermined whenever Congress impeaches a justice basedon a collegial decision that it does not agree with. TheConstitution did not give Congress the power of impeachmentso it could violate the doctrines of separation of power and thebill of rights. Corollary to this, the former Chief Justice contested

that the impeachment move against him has all been aboutpolitics from beginning to end. It is about Hacienda Luisita, theP10 billion compensation which the President's family reportedlywants for the land that was simply lent to them by thegovernment; the need to terrorize and instill a chilling effect onthe Justices of the Supreme Court to be able to bend theirdecisions in favor of the Malacañang tenant. Considering thatthe impeachment has left a mar k in the Judiciary’s reputation,both in good and bad ways, the rebuilding of the SupremeCourt’s integrity after going through such a phenomenalchallenge in its existence must have open doors for the public tonever lose its trust to this indispensable institution.

Whaley (2012) believed that the Chief Justice of thePhilippine Supreme Court, Renato C. Corona, was removed




from office in a landmark conviction that could strengthen thepresident’s hand in cracking down on the endemic corruptionthat has long been a drag on the economy. This was the firsttime that a high-level Philippine official had been removed fromoffice after impeachment and conviction. Officials are oftenremoved through street protests (New York Times, 2012).

Wagner (2012) in his column in Huffington Post voicedout that in uniquely Filipino fashion, the impeachment trial hadbecome its own daytime soap opera, with Sen. Miriam DefensorSantiago giving lengthy tirades about the ineptitude of theprosecution, Corona weeping during his testimony, and SenatorEnrile calling a lock down in the Senate after Corona apparentlyattempted to walk out of the court room without having beenexcused as a witness, among an array of other circus-like acts.However, in a country that has grown used to removing high-ranking public officials through mass mobilization and streetprotests, the conviction of a sitting chief justice can be seen notonly as a sign of political maturity for the Philippines, but also as

a right step towards an effective anti-corruption and goodgovernance campaign heralded by the Aquino administration.Or so it seems. The early emphasis of the impeachment trial ofCorona on partiality and subservience to Arroyo was clearlyeclipsed by Article II and Corona's SALNs -- in short, hisconviction seems unrelated to the greater question of partiality.In relation to this, Cheng (2013), in his ABS-CBN news column,articulated that since the conviction of former Chief JusticeRenato Corona in the impeachment court, Malacañang said thatgovernment employees are now more conscious about theaccuracy of their SALNs. Cheng (2013), quoting DeputyPresidential Spokesperson Valte, also said that immediateimpact that one could already see after the impeachment is theemphasis on the declaration of SALN when it comes toemployees of the government. Following Corona's conviction

and removal, the president might well choose to pursueimpeachment efforts against the other justices, but this seemstoo strenuous an effort for too little potential reward, and it isunclear if revving up another impeachment train will accomplishthe very objectives of Aquino's anti corruption campaign; if Aquino wants to go after other high ranking officials in the judiciary or elsewhere, it may be best for the Ombudsman to actfirst. This way, anyone who happens to be in the House'sprosecution panel will have in her hands a strong, well-foundedcase in the event that an impeachment will be necessary.

The audacity of the defense to say that President Aquinowas embarking on a witch hunt, and that the pursuit of Coronaand Arroyo are nothing more than political vendettas, speaksloudly to its presumption that the end result of the trial would be“business as usual”. Indeed, if President Aquino and the Senatewere cut from a different cloth a mistrial would have beendeclared for some ridiculous reason, or Corona's and Arroyo'svain attempt to feign illness would have succeeded in securingtheir release. This time, it is different. The world is watching.Now, it is imperative that an appropriate sentence be dispensedand that both serve their entire duration of that sentence.Otherwise, the President and the country open themselves up toliving up to now dated expectations about how justice is servedin the Philippines.

The Palace’s audacious move to impeach the ChiefJustice displays its headstrong determination to cleanse thebureaucracy of corruption by eliminating the very personalitiesthat perpetuate it. The fact that the Palace has gone down this

road despite its difficulty and political risk tells one and all thatgovernment is not merely simply paying lip service to its anti-corruption campaign, but putting concrete actions behind it. This




resonates strongly in the international community. The mannerby which the impeachment trial has been conducted so far alsocontributes to the formation of renewed confidence. Despite themany comedy of errors and occasional displays of insanity fromthe Senator judges, no one can deny that the procedural flow ofthe hearings strictly adhere to the provisions of the constitution.This time around, people power has not come into play, neitherhas mob rule nor military intervention (www.mb.com.ph/articles).

From the words of Masigan (2012), the impeachmentproceedings has brought the weaknesses of our justice systemto the forefront, particularly how it lends itself to partisan politicsand how the law is enforced with double standards. Now thatthe public knows better, a higher standard of behavior isexpected. No longer will the citizens accept magistrates withdubious records of honesty and impartiality, they now demandnothing less than morally upright civil servants who act asrighteous arbiters of what is right or wrong. It was reckoned thatthe judicial institutions will never be the same again after thisdebacle. The public will not allow it to. This is a new day. It mayeven be a new dawn. The roots of corruption, of the sense ofentitlement of those in the power, are deeply entrenched. Oneimpeachment may not transform, but it will open opportunitiesfor transformation where there were none (Philippine DailyInquirer, 2012).

Khan, Jr. (2012), in his keynote speech at the launch ofthe book “History of the Supreme Court” to mark the Court’s111th anniversary on June 11 said that the former Chief JusticeReynato Puno decried the “spiritual slump” and apparent

disarray in the judiciary in the aftermath of its “collision with thepolitical branches of government,” as well as the widespread

confusion following the conviction of now ex-Chief JusticeRenato Corona by the Senate impeachment tribunal.

In the impeachment trial, legitimate questions wereraised in relation to substantive and procedural due process, thequantum of proof required to establish or verify a fact and itsadmissibility in evidence, the degree of respect dueimpeachable officials and their right against self-incrimination,the scope and extent of the rules on subjudice and trial bypublicity, principles of statutory construction, and reconciliationof seemingly inconsistent laws. These remain unsettled even asthey are bunched in the layman’s eyes under the rubric oflegalese and technicalities. To ensure that the rule of law andimpartial administration of justice are not sacrificed in the future,a focused and sustained effort must be made to resolve thesequandaries, particularly where they involve amendatorylegislation or policy reformulation(opinion.inquirer.net/31211/unsettled-questions).

Aning (2012) enunciated that the Supreme Courthas cleared Chief Justice Renato Corona of wrongdoing in therecall of the tribunal’s controversial decision on a labor casefiled by the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of thePhilippines (Fasap).The Fasap case was cited as one of thecourt’s flip-flopping decisions allowed by Corona and made aground for his impeachment for culpable violation of theConstitution and betrayal of public trust. In a 30-page resolutiondated March 13 but released only Wednesday, the court, voting7-2, ordered the reraffling of the case after dismissing theallegations of impropriety over the tribunal’s entertaining four

letters from Philippine Airlines lawyer Estelito Mendoza. Fasaphad complained that Mendoza’s letters prompted the recall bythe court en banc of the Sept. 7, 2011, resolution by the court’s




Second Division which had declared with finality that theretrenchment by PAL of 1,400 Fasap members in 1998 wasillegal. The Supreme Court said that the recall was made by thecourt on its own before the ruling’s finality pursuant to thecourt’s power of control over its orders and resolutions. Thus, nodue process issue ever arose. In addition, the high tribunal saidCorona had no role in the recall as he had earlier inhibitedhimself from the case. In the absence of any clear personalmalicious participation, it is neither correct nor proper to hold theChief Justice personally accountable for the collegial ruling ofthe court en banc.

The Filipinos were proud after the Senate impeachmentcourt rendered its historic decision. Many are proud that ourconstitutional democracy works; that the rule of law is alive andcan solve our conflicts and problems; that we no longer needextra-constitutional methods, like people power, to cleanse andreform ourselves. It is essential to choose the most suitablechief justice to exercise stewardship over our judicial system. Itis important to learn the lessons of the Corona impeachmentcase (www.opinion.inquirer.net/29871/many-important-lessons).However, for the members of the judiciary the conclusion ofimpeachment was viewed by them as an attack to the integrityof the judicial system as a whole. Being so, the respondents,considering the nature of their responsibilities and subordinationto the former Chief Justice, are not expected to see theimpeachment as a symbol of heightened pride for the Filipinos.No loyal slave can see his king’s suffering and castle’sdisruption as an achievement to brag about. A public office is apublic trust. All public officers are accountable. No one is above

the law. Join the government mainly for public service and notfor private gain. The administration of justice must betransformed. Justice delayed is justice denied. So is costly

justice. The rules of evidence must facilitate the discovery ordisclosure of truth, and not its concealment or distortion.Intellectual brilliance is no excuse for hostile and arrogantrhetoric. The good society requires civility and proper decorum.

Aside from the political, social and professional effects ofthe impeachment, Salazar, quoting Soriano, stated that heconviction is medicine for the property sector. The conviction ofCJ Corona is a purely political exercise and will not in any wayhave any significant impact on the market. However, for foreignproperty investors, eyeing the Philippines as a viable alternativeto channel investments, the conviction offers a welcomedevelopment and can result to more players taking a moreaggressive position. The decision is interpreted by manyforeigners as the possible beginning of true, sustainable reformin the country. This is certainly a big win for the country and itsleadership because it demonstrates its will to fight corruption atall levels.

The study conducted by Henchey (2009) provides thattechnically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminalproceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actualact of removal. Most references to impeachment, however,encompass the entire process, beginning with the House'simpeachment inquiry. By design, impeachment is a complexseries of steps and procedures undertaken by the legislature.The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conductedby the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by theSenate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is notdirected exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language,

"all civil officers," includes such positions as Federal judgeships.The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlinedprocess for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees.




Following review, the committee may begin an impeachmentinquiry, which, if carried to ultimate conclusion, may render thesitting President an ordinary citizen, and elevate the Vice-President to the Office. Such action derives from Congress'Constitutional mandate and represents the most powerful checkand balance granted to the Legislative Branch.

In the research conducted by Agi (2007), it is argued thatimpeachment of public officials must be carried out inaccordance with the strict stipulations of the constitution; anddue process backed by purity of motive must be the guidingprinciple. Only then can impeachment, if it becomes necessary,contribute to the advancement of the cause of law anddemocracy in a country.

In most presidential constitutions, presidents can beremoved for what the United States constitution calls “highcrimes and misdemeanors” through a process that variouslyuses national congresses and courts to indict and try individualpresidents (Hochstetler, 2007). The researcher further stated inher research that barely-constitutional impeachment processeswere similar enough to presidential resignations that they couldbe treated as one phenomenon. Close study of particularinstances showed that the difference in mechanisms ofpresidential removal was often a matter of timing andexpediency – would the president resign before congress puttogether some kind of removal process, which might or mightnot be formal impeachment depending on circumstances? Themost common label chosen for the phenomenon was theprocess-neutral “interrupted presidency”, but it isindistinguishable from “presidential fall, failure or removal”.

Segal (2009) asserts, in his study entitled “Impeachmentof the President”, the President is a federal employee and, assuch, he should be held accountable for his actions as everyother employee. No President is above the law. Lying underoath is clearly a crime. A high official’s acquittal on animpeachment trial did not have major political consequences. Infact, such acquittal is tantamount to the preservation of acountry’s constitutional system and its checks and balances.

Kada (2008), said that in countries with presidentialsystems, presidents were either too strong or too weak to giveconstitutional mechanisms of impeachment a chance. Strongpresidents held control of the government using a vast array ofconstitutional and political powers, and in many cases,authoritarian measures, making it virtually impossible to opposethem without risking political suicide or worse. Weak presidentswere easily removed by force. Corollary to this, it was noted thatthere were 93 democracies that have constitutions with explicitprovisions for impeachment and removal by impeachment. Yet,only twelve countries have thus far attempted to impeach highofficials.

The legislature is the single most important actor indeciding the case the fate of the president. Even in cases wherepresidents were removed by means other than impeachment,the legislature prompted popular protest that resulted in theremoval of the president or used its constitutional authority todeclare the presidency vacant. In every country, it is thelegislative that decides whether the president will be impeachedor not. Without the consent of the legislature, no attempt toimpeach a president can go beyond accusing the president ofan impeachable offense.




Public trust is the most inevitable pillar of public office.Public accountability is a mandated duty required by theConstitution. As aspiring lawyers and agents of the law,knowing the effects of the impeachment will serve as a guide infulfilling the duty of being a minister of justice and upholding therequired dignity of the legal profession. In addition, as aspiringpublic servants, the effects of the impeachment will be an

avenue to uplift the principle that public office is a public trust.

Methods

Research Design

The researchers used the descriptive method of researchto determine the effects of the impeachment of the former ChiefJustice to the Court Employees in Batangas City. According toJacobs (2010), descriptive research involves the collection ofdata in order to answer questions about the current status of thesubject or topic of study. It uses formal instruments to studypreferences, attitudes, practices, concerns, or interests of asample.

The researchers believe that this method is best for thepurpose of giving the students better understanding by providingrich details about the effects of the impeachment of the formerChief Justice.

Participants of the Study

The researchers used 105 Court Employees, excludingthe Trial Judges, of the Hall of Justice in Batangas City as theirrespondents.

Instrument

The researchers utilized a researcher-madequestionnaire. The first part was the profile of the respondentswhich included their sex, age, educational attainment, length ofgovernment service and position. The second part of theresearcher-made questionnaire was the effects of the

impeachment of the former Chief Justice. After the modificationsand approval of the adviser and the validation of Atty. Nancy C.Bernardo and Atty. Reynold S. Beredo, the questionnaire wasformed. The researchers utilized the 1987 PhilippineConstitution.

Procedure

The study was conducted by the researchers through thehelp of their adviser, Dr. Cherry Tamayo. They accumulatedinformation through brainstorming in the classroom wherein thefirst foundations were made. The data were gathered in thelibrary specifically in the Internet Section, journals, currentevents as well as in the research and studies conducted byother people in connection with the effects of the impeachment.

To know the quantity of the total respondents needed,the researchers asked the assistance of Atty. Mike Masangcay,a Clerk of Court in the Hall of Justice in Batangas City, to givethe total number of court employees currently employed therein.The total number of court employees was presented to thestatistician, Ms. Annalie Pateña, for computation of the totalrespondents and the latter gave the formula using the statisticaltools.




After the questionnaire was validated by the experts forits improvements and refinements, this was finalized and theresearchers produced several copies thereof.

For the actual data gathering from the respondents, theresearchers asked permission from proper authorities toadminister the questionnaire. The researchers immediately

collected them after the respondents were done answering.

Once the answered questionnaires were gathered, datawere immediately tallied and grouped the results accordingly.The grouped data were presented to the statistician forcomputation using the necessary statistical tools. Subsequently,the researchers analyzed and interpreted the results usingperspectives and review of literature then gathered conclusionsand recommendations.

Data Analysis

The data was tallied and interpreted using differentstatistical tools. Frequency distribution was used to describe thepercentage distribution of the respondents’ profile. In addition,Weighted mean was used to identify the effects of theimpeachment of the Former Chief Justice. Moreover, Analysis ofVariance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significantdifference in the effects of the impeachment when groupedaccording to variables. All data was supported using PASWversion 18 using 0.05 alpha level.

Results and Discussion

1. Profile of the Respondents

As seen in the next page, Table 1 presents thedistribution of the respondents’ profile. In terms of sex, malewas dominated by female since it obtained the highest

frequency of 74 or 70.50 percent. This signifies that most of theemployees working in the Hall of Justice in Batangas City arefemale.

With regard to age, 34 to 41 and 42 – 49 years old gotthe same frequency of 36 which ranked first while 18 to 25years old got the lowest frequency. The data shows that most ofthe employees working in the Hall of Justice are in a morematured age, the employees being in their early 30’s to late 40’s. As to the employees aged 18-25 years old, who got the lowestfrequency, it can be interpreted that there are only few membersof the young labor force employed in the Hall of Justice.

As to educational attainment of the employees, majorityare college graduates which is comprised of 87 or 82.90 percent,followed by those who obtained masteral degree. Consideringthat the practice of the legal profession and exercise of publicservice require sufficient knowledge, training and experience, itis undoubted that most of the employees are college graduates.Based on the foregoing, it also follows that some of theemployees have obtained masteral degree.




Table 1Percentage Distribution of the Respondents’ Profile

N = 105

Profile Variables Frequency Percentage (%)

Sex

Male 31 29.50Female 74 70.50

Age

18-25 years old 3 2.9026-33 years old 13 12.4034-41 years old 36 34.3042-49 years old 36 34.3050 years old and above 17 16.20Educational Attainment

Doctoral Degree 5 4.80Masteral Degree 9 8.60College Graduate 87 82.90College Undergraduate 4 3.80

Length of GovernmentService

Less than 1-5 years 12 11.406- 10 years 20 19.0011- 15 years 20 19.0016- 20 years 24 22.9021- 25 years 18 17.1026- 30 years 6 5.7031 years and above 5 4.80

Position

Clerk of Court 15 14.30 Administrative Officer 2 1.90

Rank-and-File 88 83.8

The result also shows that most of the employees areworking for 16 to 20 years followed by 6 to 10 and 11 to 15years. Only five (5) employees are in service for 31 years andabove. Generally, working as a government employee entailsstability in terms of professional employment. The result thatwas gleaned from the table supports the aforesaid fact. Sincethe retirement age for government employees is 60-65 years old,

it is understandable that there were only five employees whoare in the service for 31 years and above.

As to the position, majority of the respondents are Rankand File employees which comprised of 88 or 83.8 percent.There were only 2 Administrative Officers as respondents. It isevident that most of the individuals employed in the Hall ofJustice are Rank and File employees.

2. Effects of Impeachment

As seen from the table on the next page, the respondentsagree with the effects of impeachment as revealed by thecomposite mean of 2.61. The result indicates that the mostagreed effect of impeachment was that the impeachment led toa more strict compliance of government officials in thedeclaration of their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and NetWorth (SALN), with the weighted mean of 3.08. This result isnot surprising considering that the very basis of Corona’sconviction was his failure to properly declare his SALN. Tofurther support this finding, Cheng (2012) stated that since theconviction of former Chief Justice Renato Corona in theimpeachment court, government employees are now moreconscious about the accuracy of their SALNs. Cheng also saidthat immediate impact that one could already see after the




impeachment is the emphasis on the declaration of SALN whenit comes to employees of the government.

Ranking second with the weighted mean of 2.97, theeffect that the impeachment led to the observance of higherstandard of behavior especially to public officials has beenagreed by the respondents. This result implicates that since it is

already the Highest Magistrate who has been impeached, allpublic officials must always inculcate in their minds andengraved in their hearts that being agents of public service, ahigher standard of behavior must be consistently observed.

Table 2Effects of Impeachment of Former Chief Justice as Perceived by

the EmployeesN = 105

WeightedMean

VerbalInterpretation

Rank

1. The former Chief Justice’s

impeachment preserved the dignityof my profession.

2.59 Agree 13

2. The impeachment heightened

the Filipino pride.2.36 Disagree 23

3. The impeachment solved some

of the country’s political conflicts. 2.13 Disagree 25

4. The impeachment reduced

foreign investments.2.41 Disagree 20.5

5. The independence of the

judiciary was tarnished by the

impeachment.

2.90 Agree 3.5

6. The Corona conviction set as an

example that no one is above the

law.

2.82 Agree 5.33

7. There was an improvement in

administration of justice because of

the impeachment.

2.54 Agree 16

8. The confidence of the public to

the judicial system was restored.2.50 Agree 17

9. The Corona conviction

demoralized the members of the

justice system.

2.75 Agree 8

10. The trust of the people in the

judiciary was greatly diminished.2.41 Disagree 20.5

11. The impeachment has opened

my eyes to real essence of the

performance of my duties.

2.60 Agree 12

12. The impeachment motivated

me to perform my responsibilities

more effectively.

2.82 Agree 5.33

13. The impeachment led to a

more strict compliance of

government officials in the

declaration of their SALNs.

3.08 Agree 1

14. The impeachment led to the

observance of higher standard of

behavior especially to public

officials.

2.97 Agree 2

15. The impeachment opened

opportunities for transformation for

the judicial system.

2.67 Agree 9.5

16. The impeachment reconciled

inconsistent laws.2.44 Disagree 19

17. The Principle of Separation ofPowers was strengthened by

Corona’s impeachment.

2.38 Disagree 22




18. The impeachment proved that

there were inconsistency of

decisions in final and executory

cases.

2.28 Disagree 24

19. The Principle of Checks and

Balances was preserved by

Corona’s impeachment.

2.46 Disagree 18

20. The impeachment showed that

democracy is at work.2.56 Agree 14

21. The impeachment strengthened

the constitutional provision that

public office is a public trust.

2.82 Agree 5.33

22. The impeachment rebuilt the

Supreme Court’s integrity. 2.55 Agree 15

23. The impeachment

demonstrated the strength of the

constitutional institutions.

2.65 Agree 11

24. The Corona conviction set up

the essence of the impeachment

process.

2.67 Agree 9.5

25. The impeachment increased

the public official’s observance of

the responsibility, integrity, loyalty

and efficiency required of them.

2.90 Agree 3.5

Composite Mean 2.61 AgreeLegend: 3.50 – 4.00 = Strongly Agree; 2.50 – 3.49 = Agree; 1.50 – 2.49 = Disagree;1.00 – 1.49 = Strongly Disagree

The data further shows that the respondents agreed as tothe effect that the impeachment increased the public official’s

observance of the responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiencyrequired of them. This finding supports another result that theimpeachment motivated the respondents to perform their

responsibilities more effectively. This outcome indicates that theimpeachment reminded the respondents that all governmentofficials, no matter how high their positions in the governmenthierarchy are, can be held accountable for their actions. Publicoffice is not to be understood as a position of honor, prestige,and power but a position of rendering service to the public soobservance of the requirements set by law must be increased.

As revealed by a weighted mean of 2.90, therespondents agreed that the independence of the judiciary wastarnished by Corona’s impeachment. This supportsQuismundo’s (2011) words that the undeniable speed by whichthe impeachment complaint was approved violated theconstitutional guarantee of judicial independence. In connectionwith this, Quismundo also said that the head governor of theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines stated that the 188Congressmen, in impeaching the Chief Justice based oncollegial decisions, have in effect arrogated upon themselvesthe power to interpret the laws which is in effect, a clear

violation of judicial independence.

Fourth on the list is the effect that the impeachment hasset an example that no one is above the law, the same having aweighted mean of 2.82. This is supported by the study entitled“Impeachment of the President” conducted by Segal (2009)wherein he stated that the President is a federal employee andas such, he should be held accountable for his actions as everyother employees. His study manifested that no President isabove the law. Since the Philippines is a democratic society, theexecutive, legislative and judicial departments are placed inequal footing. If no President is above the law, no Chief Justiceis above the law as well.


Eff t f th I h t 42



The data also reveals that the respondents agreed as tothe effect that the impeachment strengthened the constitutionalprovision that public office is a public trust. As gleaned on therespondents’ responses, it can be interpreted that since Coronaholds a public office, he owes to the public the utmostresponsibility to maintain the trust reposed on him. WithCorona’s impeachment, it was proved that every public official

must at all times imbibe the virtues required of a public servant.Corona, being the first Highest Magistrate to have beensubjected to an impeachment trial and more so convicted, hasbeen an exemplification that public trust must be preserved bythose occupying a public office. Otherwise, no government canbe stable enough without the sole repository of its power whichis the public.

However, there are some effects that the respondents donot agree with. Topping the list is the effect that theimpeachment reduced foreign investments. The respondents’disagreement is not surprising as the conclusion of the

impeachment translates to renewed investor confidencetowards the Philippines. Salazar (2012) enunciated thatCorona’s conviction is medicine for the property sector . Thismeans that the decision is interpreted by many foreigners as thepossible beginning of the true and sustainable economic reformin the country.

The respondents also disagreed that the impeachmentdiminished the trust of the people in the Judiciary. This findingindicates that the people did not single out the Judiciary andCorona. It is a fact that Corona has been a Member of theSupreme Court but his conviction devolves on him alone,particularly on his failure to properly declare his SALN, and notto the Judiciary.

Having a weighted mean of 2.38, the respondentsdisagreed that the principle of separation of powers wasstrengthened by the impeachment. This finding supports theresult that the independence of the judiciary was tarnishedbecause of the impeachment, the two being interconnected. Inaddition, Quismundo (2011) expressed that the impeachmentmove threatened the disruption of constitutional balance. He

added that the move is discriminatory and a patent display ofdisregard for the rule of law and the separation of powers.

The data also shows that the respondents disagreed asto the effect that the impeachment heightened the Filipino pride.It appears that this f inding negates a critic of the Philippine DailyInquirer (2012) who once enunciated that the impeachmentlifted the pride of the Filipinos. Since the respondents aremembers of the judiciary and taking it from their points of view,the conviction of Corona may not be seen by them assomething to be proud of. The conclusion of the impeachmentmay be viewed by them as an attack to the integrity of the

judicial system as a whole.

The respondents disagree that the impeachment provedthat there were inconsistency of decisions in final and executorycases. This finding is supported by Aning’s (2012) words thatthe Supreme Court cleared the former Chief Justice ofwrongdoing in the recall of the tribunal’s controversial decisionon a labor case filed by the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap). Aning also stated thatCorona cannot be singled out as the head of all decisions madeby the Supreme Court as the latter embodies a collegial system,that is, each justice casts a vote regarding a certain case.




3. Difference of Responses on the Effects of theImpeachment of Former Chief Justice When GroupedAccording to Profile Variables

As seen from the table, only length of governmentservice shows significant difference on the effects of

impeachment since the computed F-value of 2.580 is greaterthan the critical value and the resulted p-value of 0.023 is lessthan 0.05 level of significance.

Table 3Difference of Responses on the Effects of the Impeachmentof Former Chief Justice When Grouped According to Profile

Variablesα = 0.05

ProfileVariables

Fc p-value

Decision Interpretation

Sex 0.727 0.396 Accepted Not Significant Age 0.870 0.485 Accepted Not SignificantEducational Attainment

1.706 0.171 Accepted Not Significant

Length ofGovernmentService

2.580 0.023 Rejected Significant

Position 0.723 0.607 Accepted Not SignificantLegend: Significant at p-value < 0.05; HS = Highly Significant; S = Significant;NS = Not Significant

Therefore the null hypothesis of no significant differenceon the effects of impeachment when grouped according to yearsof service is rejected. This means that the employees’

perception on the effects varies to the level of their seniority(years) in the office. It has always been a principle that thelonger a person works in a certain field, the deeper is theconnection that the former builds with the latter. In the samestance, the length of time that an individual has spent in aparticular profession, considering the training, experience andvalues learned as well as people encountered, is determinative

of one’s views, opinions and perception over a certain matterconcerning such definite profession.

However, other profile variables do not show significantdifference as to the effects of impeachment.




Conclusions

1. Most of the respondents are court employees working inthe Hall of Justice in Batangas City for 16-20 years.

2. The most agreed effect of impeachment is that it led to amore strict compliance of government officials in the

declaration of their SALN and it did not reduce foreigninvestments and not diminish the trust of the people tothe Judiciary.

3. There is significant difference in the effects of theimpeachment when the respondents were groupedaccording to length of government service.

Recommendations

1. The Commission on Audit may adopt an efficient policy toensure that public officials are diligently observing the

constitutional provision embodied in Article XI, Section17of the 1987 Constitution mandating the declaration oftheir Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth orSALN.

2. Being the Highest Tribunal of the country, the Judiciary,may initiate measures to always maintain theconstitutional provision under Section 1, Article XI of the1987 Constitution that public office is a public trust.

3. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for PublicOfficials and Employees, otherwise known as RA 6713,

may be amended to impose higher criteria for public

officials and employees in the discharge of the dutiesrequired of them.

4. Future researchers may come up with a thorough studyon the effects of the impeachment of the Former ChiefJustice using other variables to further scrutinize theother effects of this significant part of our political history.




References

Agi, V. (2007). Impeachment And Democracy . RetrievedJanuary 12, 2013 fromhttp://www.studymode.com/impeachment-and-democracy/sdhjkfgui5u6o4p5okjfhtr

Alabano, Alabano, Jr., Alabano-Pua, Alabano III. (2008).Reviewer in Political Law . Manila: Rex Bookstore.

Aning, J. (2012). Supreme Court Clears Corona in PALCase. Retrieved August 12, 2013 fromhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/165365/supreme-court-clears-corona-in-pal-case#ixzz2bO2U5FNP

Bernardo, A.and Ramos, L. (2009). Political Science andthe1987 Philippine Constitution.

Cheng, W. (2013). Gov't employees more responsibleafter Corona ouster. Retrieved August 12, 2013from http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/05/29/13/govt-employees-more-responsible-after-corona-ouster

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. (2012). RetrievedNovember 11, 2012 fromhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/cjcorona.php

Corona Impeachment 101. (2012). Retrieved November18, 2012 fromhttp://coronaimpeachment101.wordpress.com/category/r

esearch/

Daily Mirror News. (2012). Impeachment Will Impact OnForeign Investment. Retrieved December 7, 2012from http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/25005impeachment-will-impact-on-foreign-investment-us.html

Daily Star International News. (2013). Sri LankanParliament Votes To Impeach Chief Justice.

Retrieved February 12, 2013 fromhttp://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/Jan-11/201874-sri-lankan-parliament-votes-to-impeach-chiefjustice.ashx#ixzz2ItHxe7nc

Dannug, R. and Campanilla, M. (2003). Politics,Governance and Government with Philippine Constitution.Quezon City: C & E Publishing.

Dannug, R. and Campanilla, M. (2004). Politics,Governance and Government with Philippine Constitution.Quezon City: C & E Publishing.

De La Vega, Tan, Dalida, Panganiban. (2005).Motivational Factors in the Job Performance of the Rank-and- File Personnel of some offices in the Hall of Justicein Batangas City.

De Leon, H. (2005). Philippine Governance And The1987 Constitution. Manila: Rex Bookstore.

De Leon, H. and De Leon, H. Jr. (2010). Student’sManual On The Constitution. Manila: Rex PrintingCompany.


http://www.studymode.com/impeachment-and-%20democracy/sdhjkfgui5u6o4p5okjfhtr


http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/165365/supreme-court-clears-corona-in-pal-case#ixzz2bO2U5FNP


http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/05/29/13/govt-employees-more-responsible-after-corona-ouster



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/cjcorona.php

http://coronaimpeachment101.wordpress.com/category/research/



http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/25005impeachment-will-impact-on-foreign-investment-us.html



http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/Jan-11/201874-sri-lankan-parliament-votes-to-impeach-chief-justice.ashx#ixzz2ItHxe7nc











http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/cjcorona.php









Estrada Impeachment Causes Tension. (2008).Retrieved December 27, 2012 fromhttp://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2012/03/13/estrada-impeachment-causes-tension-corona-trial-210881

Guardian News. (2012). Romania President Impeached .

Retrieved December 7, 2012 fromhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/06/romania-president-impeached

Henchey, P. (2009). A Study On Impeachment Process.Retrieved January 12, 2013 fromhttp://www.studymode.com/impeachment-process/h6tyhgks765403

Hochstetler, O. (2007). The Impeachment Phenomenon.Retrieved January 12, 2013 fromhttp://www.studymode.com/the-%-impeachment-

Phenomenon&/gdyufhnvioeryka7549hfeuwty

Human Rights Asia News. (2012). Retrieved December 7,2012 fromhttp://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-217-2012

Impeachment of Bill Clinton. (2008). Retrieved December7, 2012 fromhttps://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/History:%20World/4772.htm

Jacobs, R. (2010).Educational Research: DescriptiveResearch. Retrieved March 18, 2013, fromhttp://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/.../EDU%208603/lessons/descriptive.ppt

Kada, Q. (2008). Legislature: An Important Actor .Retrieved January 12, 2013 from

http://www.studeymode.com/legislature-75/%&hgdfewy7r849irioe34hfnewuihfioewo

Khan, I. (2012). Unsettled Questions. RetrievedNovember 18, 2012 fromhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/31211/unsettled-questions

Lazo, R. Jr. (2006). Philippine Governance And The 1987Constitution. Manila: Rex Bookstore.

Lazo, R. Jr. (2009). Philippine Governance And The 1987Constitution. Manila: Rex Bookstore.

Many Important Lessons. (2012). Retrieved November18, 2012 from http://opinion.inquirer.net/29871/many-important-lessons

Masigan, A. (2012). Corona’ s Impeachment and TheEconomy . Retrieved December 22, 2012 fromhttp://www.mb.com.ph/articles/357464/corona-s-impeachment-and-the-economy

President Andrew Johnson Impeached. (2009). Retrieved

December 7, 2012 fromhttp://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-andrew-johnson-impeached


http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2012/03/13/estrada-impeachment-causes-tension-corona-trial-210881





http://www.studymode.com/impeachment-process/h6tyhgks765403


http://www.studymode.com/the-%25-impeachment-%0d%20%20%20%20%20%09Phenomenon&/gdyufhnvioeryka7549hfeuwty



https://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/History:%20World/4772.htm


http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/.../EDU%208603/lessons/descriptive.ppt


http://www.studeymode.com/legislature-75/%25&hgdfewy7r849irioe34hfnewuihfioewo


http://opinion.inquirer.net/31211/unsettled-questions

http://opinion.inquirer.net/29871/many-important-lessons


http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/357464/corona-s-impeachment-and-the-economy



http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-andrew-johnson-impeached








http://opinion.inquirer.net/31211/unsettled-questions



















Quismundo, T. (2011). Corona Impeachment TrapFlawed- IBP. Retrieved August 12, 2013 fromhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/115431/corona-impeachment-rap-flawed%E2%80%93ibp

Salazar, T. (2012). Boost in foreign investor confidenceseen after Corona conviction. Retrieved August 12, 2013

from http://business.inquirer.net/62787/boost-in-foreign-investor-confidence-seen-after-corona-conviction

Segal, D. (2009). Impeachment of the President .Retrieved January 12, 2013 fromhttp://www.studymode.com/&%-impeachment-of-the-president/shdyuergf328784590wfheruiyterufhew

Appendix ALetter to the Dean

July 2013

Dr. Imelda AnOfficer- In- Charge

College of Education Arts and Sciences

Dear Ma’am:

We, the AB Paralegal IV are conducting our studyentitled “Impeachment of a Former Chief Justice: Its Effects tothe Court Employees in Batangas City”, which is a courserequirement in AB Paralegal IV in this university.

Given that premise, we are humbly asking for yourpermission to allow us to distribute our questionnaires to ourrespondents during their most convenient time.

Hoping this will merit your kind approval.

Thank you so much for your incessant support.

Sincerely,Marc Kevin G. AretaKatherine Mae L. GuicoEunice P. LopezMary Joy F. Matubis

Noted by:Dr. Ma. Rosario Tamayo Adviser, Research 2

Paralegal Studies

Effects of the Impeachment 52 Effects of the Impeachment i

Eff t f th I h t ii Eff t f th I h t iii

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/115431/corona-impeachment-rap-flawed%E2%80%93ibp



http://business.inquirer.net/62787/boost-in-foreign-investor-confidence-seen-after-corona-conviction



http://www.studymode.com/&%25-impeachment-of-the-president/shdyuergf328784590wfheruiyterufhew










Appendix B

Letter to the Executive Judge

July 08, 2013

Hon. Ruben A. GalvezExecutive Judge

Dear Sir:

May your day be blessed! The undersigned are currentlyconducting a study entitled “Impeachment of a Former ChiefJustice: Its Effects to the Court Employees in Batangas City ”,which is a course requirement in AB Paralegal IV in thisuniversity. In connection with this academic endeavor, theundersigned humbly seek permission from your good office toplease allow us to disseminate questionnaires in your respectiveoffice which will serve as the primary source of data for the saidstudy. Rest assured that confidentiality will be exercised in thisdata- gathering procedure. Your approval regarding this matterwill be highly appreciated.

Thank you and more power.

Sincerely,Marc Kevin G. AretaKatherine Mae L. GuicoEunice P. LopezMary Joy F. Matubis

Noted by:

Dr. Ma. Rosario Tamayo Adviser, Research 2

Appendix C



I. RESPONDENT’S PROFILE

1.1 Sex

Male ___

Female ___

1.2 Age

18-25 ___

26-33 ___

34-41 ___42-49 ___

50 and above ___

1.3 Educational Attainment

Doctoral Degree ___

Masteral Degree ___

College Graduate ___

College Undergraduate ___

Effects of the Impeachment ii Effects of the Impeachment iii

Eff t f th I h t i Eff t f th I h t



1.4 Length of Government Service

Less than 1-5 years ___

6- 10 years ___

11- 15 years ___

16- 20 years ___

21- 25 years ___

26- 30 years ___31 years and above ___

1.5 Position _______________________

II. EFFECTS OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF FORMER CHIEF

JUSTICE

Please check the appropriate column of your choice

using the following description:

SA- Strongly Agree A- Agree D- Disagree SD- Strongly

Disagree

(4)SA

(3) A

(2)D

(1)SD

1. The former Chief Justice’simpeachment preserved thedignity of my profession.

2. The impeachmentheightened the Filipino pride.

3. The impeachment solved

some of the country’s politicalconflicts.

4. The impeachment reducedforeign investments.

5. The independence of the judiciary was tarnished by theimpeachment.

6. The Corona conviction set asan example that no one is

above the law.7. There was an improvement in

administration of justicebecause of the impeachment.

8. The confidence of the publicto the judicial system wasrestored.

9. The Corona convictiondemoralized the members ofthe justice system.

10. The trust of the people in the judiciary was greatly

diminished.11. The impeachment has

opened my eyes to realessence of the performanceof my duties.

12. The impeachment motivatedme to perform myresponsibilities moreeffectively.

13. The impeachment led to amore strict compliance ofgovernment officials in thedeclaration of their SALNs.

14. The impeachment led to the

Effects of the Impeachment iv Effects of the Impeachment v

Effects of the Impeachment vi Effects of the Impeachment vii



observance of higherstandard of behaviourespecially to public officials.

15. The impeachment openedopportunities fortransformation for the judicialsystem.

16. The impeachment reconciledinconsistent laws.

17. The Principle of Separation ofPowers was strengthened byCorona’s impeachment.

18. The impeachment provedthat there were inconsistencyof decisions in final andexecutory cases.

19. The Principle of Checks andBalances was preserved byCorona’s impeachment.

20. The impeachment showedthat democracy is at work.

21. The impeachmentstrengthened theconstitutional provision thatpublic office is a public trust.

22. The impeachment rebuilt theSupreme Court’s integrity.

23. The impeachmentdemonstrated the strength ofthe constitutional institutions.

24. The Corona conviction set upthe essence of theimpeachment process.

25. The impeachment increasedthe public official’sobservance of theresponsibility, integrity,loyalty and efficiency requiredof them.

ects o t e peac e t ects o t e peac e t

Effects of the Impeachment viii Effects of the Impeachment ix



Appendix DStatistical Output

Frequencies

Statistics

SEX AGE EDUCATIO LENGHT POSITION

NValid 105 105 105 105 105

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Frequency Table

SEX

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1.00 31 29.5 29.5 29.5

2.00 74 70.5 70.5 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

AGE


Valid

1.00 3 2.9 2.9 2.9

2.00 13 12.4 12.4 15.2

3.00 36 34.3 34.3 49.5

4.00 36 34.3 34.3 83.8

5.00 17 16.2 16.2 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

EDUCATION


Valid

1.00 5 4.8 4.8 4.8

2.00 9 8.6 8.6 13.3

3.00 87 82.9 82.9 96.2

4.00 4 3.8 3.8 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

LENGTH


Valid

1.00 12 11.4 11.4 11.4

2.00 20 19.0 19.0 30.5

3.00 20 19.0 19.0 49.5

4.00 24 22.9 22.9 72.4

5.00 18 17.1 17.1 89.5

6.00 6 5.7 5.7 95.2

7.00 5 4.8 4.8 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

POSITION


Valid

1.00 15 14.3 14.3 14.3

2.00 2 1.9 1.9 16.2

3.00 8 7.6 7.6 23.8

4.00 8 7.6 7.6 31.4

Effects of the Impeachment viii Effects of the Impeachment ix

Effects of the Impeachment x Effects of the Impeachment xi



5.00 21 20.0 20.0 51.4

6.00 51 48.6 48.6 100.0

Total 105 100.0 100.0

Descriptives

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

E1 105 1.00 4.00 2.5905 .80498

E2 105 1.00 4.00 2.3619 .77365

E3 105 1.00 4.00 2.1333 .89943

E4 105 1.00 4.00 2.4095 .84005

E5 105 1.00 4.00 2.8952 .81952

E6 105 1.00 4.00 2.8190 .82952

E7 105 1.00 4.00 2.5429 .87737

E8 105 1.00 4.00 2.5048 .72223E9 105 1.00 4.00 2.7524 .84103

E10 105 1.00 4.00 2.4095 .71650

E11 105 1.00 4.00 2.6000 .77955

E12 105 1.00 4.00 2.8190 .73092

E13 105 1.00 4.00 3.0762 .79294

E14 105 1.00 4.00 2.9714 .64237

E15 105 1.00 4.00 2.6667 .72942

E16 105 1.00 4.00 2.4381 .75859

E17 105 1.00 4.00 2.3810 .80121

E18 105 1.00 4.00 2.2762 .65772

E19 105 1.00 4.00 2.4571 .75992

E20 105 1.00 4.00 2.5619 .77116

E21 105 1.00 4.00 2.8190 .81784

E22 105 1.00 4.00 2.5524 .80838

E23 105 1.00 4.00 2.6476 .85464

E24 105 1.00 4.00 2.6667 .81650

E25 105 1.00 4.00 2.9048 .84948

EFFECTS 105 1.36 3.52 2.6103 .46074

Valid N (listwise) 105

Oneway

ANOVA EFFECTS

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .155 1 .155 .727 .396

Within Groups 21.922 103 .213

Total 22.077 104

Oneway

ANOVA EFFECTS


Between Groups .743 4 .186 .870 .485


Total 22.077 104

Effects of the Impeachment x Effects of the Impeachment xi

Effects of the Impeachment xii Effects of the Impeachment xiii



Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: EFFECTS

Scheffe

(I)AGE

(J)AGE

Mean Difference(I-J)

Std.Error

Sig.

95% ConfidenceInterval

LowerBound

UpperBound

1.00

2.00 -.2082 .29585 .974 -1.1367 .7203

3.00 -.0300 .27756 1.000 -.9011 .8411

4.00 -.1422 .27756 .992 -1.0134 .7289

5.00 .0486 .28925 1.000 -.8592 .9564

2.00

1.00 .2082 .29585 .974 -.7203 1.1367

3.00 .1782 .14946 .840 -.2909 .6473

4.00 .0660 .14946 .995 -.4031 .5351

5.00 .2568 .17018 .685 -.2773 .7909

3.00

1.00 .0300 .27756 1.000 -.8411 .9011

2.00 -.1782 .14946 .840 -.6473 .2909

4.00 -.1122 .10887 .899 -.4539 .2295

5.00 .0786 .13593 .987 -.3480 .5052

4.00

1.00 .1422 .27756 .992 -.7289 1.0134

2.00 -.0660 .14946 .995 -.5351 .4031

3.00 .1122 .10887 .899 -.2295 .4539

5.00 .1908 .13593 .741 -.2358 .6175

5.00

1.00 -.0486 .28925 1.000 -.9564 .8592

2.00 -.2568 .17018 .685 -.7909 .2773

3.00 -.0786 .13593 .987 -.5052 .34804.00 -.1908 .13593 .741 -.6175 .2358

Homogeneous Subsets

EFFECTS Scheffe

AGE NSubset for alpha = .05

1

5.00 17 2.4847

1.00 3 2.53333.00 36 2.5633

4.00 36 2.6756

2.00 13 2.7415

Sig. .831

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 9.530.

b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes isused. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Oneway

ANOVA EFFECTS


Between Groups 1.065 3 .355 1.706 .171


Total 22.077 104

Effects of the Impeachment xii Effects of the Impeachment xiii

Effects of the Impeachment xiv Effects of the Impeachment xv



Post Hoc Tests


Scheffe

(I)EDUCATION

(J)EDUCATION

MeanDifference

(I-J)

Std.Error

Sig.


LowerBound

UpperBound

1.00

2.00 -.1796 .25441 .919 -.9029 .5438

3.00 -.3955 .20976 .319 -.9919 .2009

4.00 -.2940 .30597 .820 -1.1639 .5759

2.00

1.00 .1796 .25441 .919 -.5438 .9029

3.00 -.2159 .15971 .610 -.6700 .2381

4.00 -.1144 .27409 .982 -.8937 .6649

3.00

1.00 .3955 .20976 .319 -.2009 .9919

2.00 .2159 .15971 .610 -.2381 .6700

4.00 .1015 .23324 .979 -.5617 .7647

4.00

1.00 .2940 .30597 .820 -.5759 1.1639

2.00 .1144 .27409 .982 -.6649 .8937

3.00 -.1015 .23324 .979 -.7647 .5617

Homogeneous Subsets

EFFECTS Scheffe

EDUCATIO NSubset for alpha = .05

1

1.00 5 2.2560

2.00 9 2.43564.00 4 2.5500

3.00 87 2.6515

Sig. .457




Oneway

ANOVA EFFECTS


Between Groups 3.012 6 .502 2.580 .023


Total 22.077 104

Post Hoc Tests


Scheffe

(I)LENGHT

(J)LENGHT

MeanDifference (I-

J)

Std.Error

Sig.


LowerBound

UpperBound

1.00

2.00 .0200 .16106 1.000 -.5642 .6042

3.00 -.0640 .16106 1.000 -.6482 .5202

4.00 .0583 .15594 1.000 -.5073 .6239

5.00 -.0222 .16438 1.000 -.6184 .5740

6.00 -.1267 .22054 .999 -.9265 .6732

Effects of the Impeachment xvi Effects of the Impeachment xvii



7.00 .7520 .23478 .127 -.0995 1.6035

2.00

1.00 -.0200 .16106 1.000 -.6042 .5642

3.00 -.0840 .13948 .999 -.5899 .4219

4.00 .0383 .13354 1.000 -.4460 .5227

5.00 -.0422 .14330 1.000 -.5620 .4775

6.00 -.1467 .20531 .998 -.8913 .5980

7.00 .7320 .22054 .100 -.0679 1.5319

3.00

1.00 .0640 .16106 1.000 -.5202 .6482

2.00 .0840 .13948 .999 -.4219 .5899

4.00 .1223 .13354 .991 -.3620 .6067

5.00 .0418 .14330 1.000 -.4780 .5615

6.00 -.0627 .20531 1.000 -.8073 .6820

7.00 .8160(*) .22054 .042 .0161 1.6159

4.00

1.00 -.0583 .15594 1.000 -.6239 .5073

2.00 -.0383 .13354 1.000 -.5227 .4460

3.00 -.1223 .13354 .991 -.6067 .3620

5.00 -.0806 .13753 .999 -.5794 .4183

6.00 -.1850 .20132 .990 -.9152 .5452

7.00 .6937 .21683 .128 -.0928 1.4801

5.00

1.00 .0222 .16438 1.000 -.5740 .6184

2.00 .0422 .14330 1.000 -.4775 .5620

3.00 -.0418 .14330 1.000 -.5615 .4780

4.00 .0806 .13753 .999 -.4183 .5794

6.00 -.1044 .20792 1.000 -.8586 .6497

7.00 .7742 .22297 .072 -.0345 1.5829

6.00 1.00 .1267 .22054 .999 -.6732 .9265

2.00 .1467 .20531 .998 -.5980 .8913

3.00 .0627 .20531 1.000 -.6820 .8073

4.00 .1850 .20132 .990 -.5452 .9152

5.00 .1044 .20792 1.000 -.6497 .8586

7.00 .8787 .26708 .106 -.0900 1.8474

7.00

1.00 -.7520 .23478 .127 -1.6035 .0995

2.00 -.7320 .22054 .100 -1.5319 .0679

3.00 -.8160(*) .22054 .042 -1.6159 -.0161

4.00 -.6937 .21683 .128 -1.4801 .0928

5.00 -.7742 .22297 .072 -1.5829 .0345

6.00 -.8787 .26708 .106 -1.8474 .0900

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Homogeneous Subsets

EFFECTS Scheffe

LENGHT NSubset for alpha = .05

1 2

7.00 5 1.8880

4.00 24 2.5817

2.00 20 2.6200

1.00 12 2.6400

5.00 18 2.6622

3.00 20 2.7040

6.00 6 2.7667

Sig. 1.000 .987




Effects of the Impeachment xx



1

4.00 8 2.4300

6.00 51 2.5890

5.00 21 2.6171

1.00 15 2.6373

3.00 8 2.7600

2.00 2 3.0000

Sig. .407




Authors’ Information

Marc Kevin Garcia Areta is the 19-year old pride of Sto.Domingo, Bauan, Batangas. He is a good leader with anundeniable sense of humor. He is the Governor ofCEAS Student Council and the President of both theParalegal Society and CEAS Honor Society. He lovesoutdoor activities and is always a dreamer. He believedthat he can conquer the Earth by simply serving the

people.

Katherine Mae Leus Guico is a 20-year old idealistic vis-à-vis realistic dreamer from Banjo West, Tanauan City,Batangas. She is a multifaceted lady who is valiant yetvery emotional. She yearns to travel the world andexplore its hidden beauty. She is the Secretary ofParalegal Society and a member of the CEAS HonorSociety. She desires to be a trustworthy Foreign Service

Officer or a noble advocate of the legal profession.

Eunice Panopio Lopez is a 19-year old bona fide ladyfrom Sto. Nino, San Pascual, Batangas. She is aversatile lady who excels in various facets of life such as

academics, sports, arts and practical endeavors. Shevolunteers herself in adventurous activities and acceptschallenges willingly. She is a member of the CEASHonor Society and wants to be a competent agent of thelaw someday.

Mary Joy Fajardo Matubis is a fierce woman from LipaCity, Batangas. She is 23 years of age. She is astraightforward and thoughtful kind of person. Sheknows when to prove her point especially when sheknows that her points spark intellectual arguments. Shedreams to be a litigation lawyer.

Impeachement of a Former Chief Justice Its Effects to the Court Employees in Batangas City

Documents

Transcript of Impeachement of a Former Chief Justice Its Effects to the Court Employees in Batangas City