REPUBLIC v.

ROBREDO
GR. 12345
REGADO CJ.:

The pivotal issue raised in this special civil action for certiorari with mandamus is whether Vice
President of the Philippines, respondent Lennie Robredo is liable for betrayal of public trust as a
ground for impeachment as provided for by Section 2, Article XI (Accountability of Public
Officers) of the 1987 Constitution.

The facts of the case are as follows:

1
The video of Leni Robredo’s speech was played at the "Human Rights Challenge: Responding
to Extrajudicial Killings in the Drug War," a side session that it organized for the 60th United
Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs annual meeting to be held on Thursday, March 16, at
the Vienna International Center. In the said video Robredo revealed
1. The police's alleged abuses including warrantless search and "palit-ulo" scheme being
carried out in urban poor areas in Metro Manila as part of the government's war on
drugs.
2. Those rounded up in poor communities are told by the authorities that "they didn't have
the right to demand search warrants because they were squatters and did not own the
property on which their houses were built."
3. That some of those who ask for a search warrant "have been beaten and physically
abused for doing so."
4. That because of these instances, the people have allegedly lost trust in the police.
5. She was "heartened" that the alleged drug-related extrajudicial killings in the Philippines
will be discussed in an international forum. She said it was comforting that "the
international community's eyes are on us" and "human rights advocates are watching
over our country."
6. That the drug abuse problem should be "treated as one that can't be solved with bullets
alone."
7. More than 7,000 suspected drug offenders "killed in summary executions" since
President Rodrigo Duterte's administration started its war on drugs in July last year.
8. That our people deserve nothing less than a safe environment so that anyone can walk
the streets safely whether in daylight or at night time
9. She reiterated in her speech that Filipinos should demand transparency in the Duterte
administration
10. Supposed inconsistency in the numbers about the extent of the drug problem in the
country as "officially reported" by Duterte, who had claimed that at least 3.7 million
Filipinos are drug addicts.
11. The possible reimposition of the death penalty and the lowering of age of criminal liability
to nine years old is a "brewing" human rights problem in the country.

WHAT WE MUST FIGURE OUT

1 https://lenirobredo.com/transcript-of-video-message-for-the-united-nations-side-event-on-extrajudicial-killings/
 1.) What is “betrayal of public trust” as a ground for impeachment of an officer?
2.) In sharing her view about the situation in the Philippines, is the speech covered
by Lennie Robredo’s right to freedom of expression
The sole issue of this case that we have to rule upon is whether or not , in Lennie
Robredo’s speech about the war on drugs in the Philippines, did Lennie Robredo
committed an act that constitutes betrayal of public trust

WHAT IS BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST?

Section 2, Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the
grounds for impeachment as follows: “culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”2 (Note that the issue here is
that there has been no clear definition of “what public trust is”.
In his Inquirer column, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas discusses impeachable offenses under the
Constitution and “betrayal of public trust” in particular. Grounds for impeachment are provided in
the older versions of the Philippine Constitutions, but it was only in the 1987 Constitution when
“betrayal of public trust” was included. For his part, Bernas explains that since “betrayal of public
trust” is enumerated as among an exclusive class of offenses, it must also be seen as having
the same gravity as the other offenses in the class. He is referring to how that 1987 provision is
worded such that grounds for impeachment are “culpable violation of the constitution, treason,
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust.” In his 2009
commentary, he has said that under the eiusdem generis (“of the same kind” in Latin) rule, when
the law makes an enumeration of specific objects and follows it with “other” unspecified objects,
those unspecified objects must be of the same nature as those specified. Thus, he says that for
“graft and corruption” and “betrayal of public trust” to be grounds for impeachment, their
concrete manner of commitment must be of the same severity as “treason” and “bribery.”
Bernas then points out that not every violation of public trust is an impeachable offense.3Retired
Supreme Court Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna gave a meaningful insight on a September 4 decision,
which ordered the reinstatement of Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III because the
“administrative acts imputed to petitioner fall short of the constitutional standard of betrayal of
public trust.” The SC interpreted this simply: “Acts that should constitute betrayal of public trust
as to warrant removal from office may be less than criminal but must be attended by bad faith
and of such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds of impeachment.”4

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Article III, Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or
of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.

INTERVIEW WITH LENNIE ROBREDO’S STAFF :JAYSON MAULIT

Claims:
1.) Speaking the truth is not a betrayal, but a commitment to public trust

2 http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-
1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-xi/
3 http://pcij.org/blog/2012/02/27/of-standards-of-proof-and-betraying-the-public-trust
4 http://news.abs-cbn.com/-depth/10/07/12/sc-defines-first-time-%E2%80%98betrayal-public-trust%E2%80%99
 2.) We have accounts. We sent letters to NBI, cidg, and pdea seeking for information about
the accuracy of reports that was stated in the speech
3.) Bato received a letter from us, asking for clarification. No reply.
4.) Its just a side event. Specifically for Wars on drugs and so she made her comment, since
nobody is talking about the war on drugs in the Philippines from our government she did
5.) There is no such thing as a waiver of one’s right to speech for being the vice president,
everything is just political.

HELD: I AM FOR ACQUITTAL

1) In the case of Emilio Gonzales III v. Office of the President of the Philippines, SC justice
Azcuna defined betrayal of public trust as to warrant removal from office may be less
than criminal but must be attended by bad faith and of such gravity and seriousness as
the other grounds of impeachment. Fr.Bernas in his commentaries even stated that
since there is no clear definition of betrayal of public trust as to the impeachment of
government officials, the concept of eiusdem generis (“of the same kind” in Latin) rule,
when the law makes an enumeration of specific objects and follows it with “other”
unspecified objects, those unspecified objects must be of the same nature as those
specified. Therefore Section 2, Article XI “(Accountability of Public Officers) of the 1987
Constitution enumerates the grounds for impeachment as follows: “culpable violation of
the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
public trust.” Gives us the idea that such betrayal of public trust must be of such gravity
as treason, bribery, and other high crimes.
2) Freedom of expression, is guaranteed to every individual in accordance with the Bill of
Rights as specified in the Article III, Section 4 of the constitution which states that “No
law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.” By virtue of being the Vice President of the Philippines, herein Lennie
Robredo still possess such vested right to express her disappointment by the current
situation in the Philippines.

CONCLUSION:
I believe that the Vice President of the Philippines, herein Lennie Robredo did not
commit betrayal of public trust. To be liable for committing betrayal of public trust as
to warrant impeachment of a public officer, it must be of such gravity of showing bad
faith. In the UN video towards the members of other nations in a side event
specifically dealing with war on drugs, Mrs.Robredo merely exercised her freedom of
speech in good faith by expressing sadness with the current situation in the
Philippines.
In a moment where there is imbalance in the weights of justice upon our nation, we
must not become blind as to perceive the situation different from what presents itself
to be. We must not cover our ears from the cries of our countrymen. We must not
strike silence upon the lips of a public officer by telling her that she betrayed the
nation for opposing the ideologies of her co-officials and in expressing grief for the
darkest days of the existence of due process in law. By virtue of election, one does
not surrender his/her right of freedom of speech and right to redress grievances.