Violation Of The Constitution: Culpable Or Not?

Culpable violation of the Constitution is a term used to describe a deliberate and wrongful breach of the Constitution. It is one of the grounds for impeachment, along with treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust. The term implies a willful and intentional violation, suggesting a degree of perversity on the part of the offender. While the specific crimes may not always be defined, the consequences can be severe, often leading to the impeachment and removal of the accused from their official position. This has been seen in cases involving presidents, judges, and other public officials, where the violation of the Constitution has resulted in a loss of public trust and integrity.

Explore related products

Remedies for Human Rights Violations (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law, Series Number 27)

$56.46 $59

The Violation of a Constitutional Right.

$15.75

Ending Impunity for International Law Violations: Palestinian Bedouins and the Risk of Forced Displacement

$115

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Broken State, Collapse of Law, Human Rights Violations, Veil of Injustice and Constitutional Smokescreens—A Case ... against a Postcolonial Dictatorship

$3.99 $24.99

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise)

$117.28

Accountability, International Business Operations and the Law: Providing Justice for Corporate Human Rights Violations in Global Value Chains (Globalization: Law and Policy)

$42.55 $55.99

Culpable violation of the Constitution as grounds for impeachment

In the Philippines, "culpable violation of the Constitution" is one of several grounds for the impeachment of public officials, as outlined in the Constitution. This includes the President, as seen in the case of President Joseph Estrada, who was accused of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution.

For the purposes of impeachment, "culpable violation of the Constitution" is defined as "the deliberate and wrongful breach of the Constitution." This implies a willful and intentional violation, with a deliberate intent, and even a degree of perversity. It is important to note that violations of the Constitution made unintentionally, in good faith, or due to mere mistakes in the interpretation of the Constitution do not constitute an impeachable offense.

The process of impeachment in the Philippines involves the House of Representatives, which chooses 11 members to act as prosecutors, while the Senate requires its entire membership to sit as impeachment judges. To initiate impeachment, one-third of the House of Representatives must vote in favor. This can be challenging for a minority to achieve as it only takes a simple majority to set the agenda or adjourn the House.

While the specific constitutional provision violated must be specified, culpable violation of the Constitution can take various forms. For example, in the case of National Assembly v. Park Geun-hye in South Korea, the President was found guilty of "violations of the Constitution" by repeatedly transferring government documents to non-government officials, assisting friends in pursuing personal gain, formulating policies favorable to cronies, and infringing on the freedom and property rights of enterprises.

In another instance, COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos faced accusations related to the ZTE national broadband network (NBN) deal and the Hello Garci controversy, which resulted in his resignation. Additionally, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was impeached in 2011 for the underperformance of her office and failure to act on several cases during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Culpable violation of the Constitution as a deliberate and wrongful breach

The phrase "culpable violation of the Constitution" is often used in the context of impeachment proceedings. It refers to a deliberate and wrongful breach of the Constitution, implying a degree of intentionality and perversity. While the specific definition may vary across jurisdictions, it generally indicates a willful and intentional violation.

In the Philippines, for example, "culpable violation of the Constitution" is one of the grounds for impeachment, along with treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust. The Philippine Constitution textually provides for these same grounds for both the President and the Chief Justice, despite the differences in the nature of their offices.

In the United States, impeachment proceedings have been initiated against presidents and federal judges. For instance, President William Jefferson Clinton was accused of undermining the integrity of his office, bringing disrepute to the Presidency, and acting subversively to the rule of law and justice. Similarly, Judge Harry Claiborne was impeached and convicted for providing false information on federal income tax forms and perjury, which brought the judiciary into disrepute.

In South Korea, the Constitutional Court found President Park Geun-hye guilty of "violations of the Constitution," including transferring government documents to non-government officials, assisting friends in pursuing personal gain, formulating policies favourable to cronies, and infringing on the freedom and property rights of enterprises.

It is important to note that not all constitutional violations constitute culpable violations. For instance, violations made unintentionally, in good faith, or due to a mistake in interpreting the Constitution may not meet the threshold for impeachment.

Culpable violation of the Constitution vs. betrayal of public trust

The grounds for impeachment in the Philippines include culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. While "culpable violation of the Constitution" is a nebulous concept, it is not unique to the Philippine Constitution. It is defined as "the deliberate and wrongful breach of the Constitution". This means that the violation must be intentional and committed in bad faith. The Philippine Constitution does not distinguish between different offices, so the same grounds apply to the President, Chief Justice, or any other independent Constitutional Commission.

In the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, betrayal of public trust was not an impeachable offense. However, it is now included as a ground for impeachment. Betrayal of public trust means less than criminal but is attended by bad faith. This means that the failure to uphold the public's trust does not necessarily have to be a criminal act, but it must be done with ill intentions.

An example of a culpable violation of the Constitution is the case of South Korean President Park Geun-hye, who was found guilty of "violations of the Constitution" by the Constitutional Court of South Korea. The court found that she had repeatedly transferred government documents to non-government officials, assisted friends in pursuing personal gain, formulated policies favorable to cronies, and infringed on the freedom and property rights of enterprises.

Another example is the case of Bote, who was charged with three offenses, including culpable violation of the Constitution. The Ombudsman dismissed the charges, holding that the complainant failed to specify which Constitutional provision was violated. However, Bote's illegal and oppressive actions fell within the definition of misconduct, and he was re-elected as mayor, which rendered the imposition of administrative charges moot.

In conclusion, both culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust are serious offenses that can lead to impeachment and removal from office. While the former refers to intentional and wrongful breaches of the Constitution, the latter refers to acts committed in bad faith that violate the public's trust, even if they are not necessarily criminal.

Explore related products

Trial Court & Appeal: False Arrest, Imprisonment, and Civil Rights Violations By L.A. County: Complaint, Discovery, Court Forms & Motions, Appellate Briefs, and Writs of Mandate

$15.95

The Law Officer’s Pocket Manual, 2023 Edition

$21.97 $42.99

HOA Constitutional Government

$15.95 $15.95

TORTURERS REPORT - 2: Torture and Human Rights Violations in Turkey

$16.99

33 GRIEVANCES From Black America: 33 Constitutional Violations and Claims for Redress

$39.99

Public International Law and Human Rights Violations by Private Military and Security Companies

$94.72 $119.99

Culpable violation of the Constitution and misconduct

The phrase "culpable violation of the Constitution" refers to the deliberate and wrongful breach of a country's Constitution. This phrase is often used in the context of impeachment proceedings against public officials, including presidents, judges, and members of constitutional commissions. It is one of several grounds for impeachment, along with treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust.

In the Philippines, for example, President Joseph Estrada was accused of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. The impeachment trial began on December 7, 2000, but was aborted on January 16, 2001, due to a walkout by House private prosecutors.

In another case, COMELEC commissioner Luzviminda Tancangco was accused of graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. The specific charge was that she showed bias towards the multi-billion-peso voters registration and information system (VRIS) project and decided to undertake it despite a lack of funds.

It is important to note that not all violations of the Constitution constitute culpable violations. Violations that are unintentional, made in good faith, or due to a misunderstanding of the Constitution are generally not considered impeachable offenses.

In the United States, impeachment followed by conviction is often the only way to forcibly remove a sitting official. For example, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached on charges that he "undermined the integrity of his office, brought disrepute to the Presidency, betrayed his trust as President, and acted in a manner subversive of the Rule of Law and justice."

In summary, a culpable violation of the Constitution refers to a willful and intentional breach of the Constitution that is considered a serious offense and can lead to impeachment proceedings against public officials. The specific definition and consequences of such a violation can vary depending on the country's legal framework and constitutional provisions.

Culpable violation of the Constitution in the Philippines

In the Philippines, "culpable violation of the Constitution" is one of the grounds for the impeachment of a government official, along with treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. The Constitution lays down the powers of the Chief Justice and whether or not their conduct has undermined the integrity of their office or brought it into disrepute, or whether their acts or omissions have subverted the rule of law and justice, all constitute the question of whether or not they have culpably violated the Constitution.

The phrase "culpable violation of the Constitution" is defined as "the deliberate and wrongful breach of the Constitution." Violations that are unintentional, made in good faith, or due to mere mistakes in the interpretation of the Constitution do not constitute an impeachable offence. Culpable violation of the Constitution implies deliberate intent, or even a certain degree of perversity.

In the Philippines, impeachment followed by conviction is often the only way to forcibly remove a sitting official. While "impeachment" is often used to refer to the entire process of removing an official from office, it only formally refers to the indictment stage in the House of Representatives, not the trial stage in the Senate. Under the current Constitution, an official can be impeached if one third of the House of Representatives votes in favour.

In 1988, President Corazon Aquino was accused by lawmakers of graft and violating the Constitution. The charges were rejected by Congress the following month due to lack of evidence. In 2000, President Joseph Estrada was accused of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. The impeachment trial started on December 7, 2000, but was aborted on January 16, 2001, after the House private prosecutors walked out from the impeachment proceedings, to protest against the perceived dictatorial tendency of the eleven senator-judges.

Frequently asked questions