In the architecture of Philippine democracy, Constitutional Officers are designed to be the bedrock of institutional independence. To ensure they can perform their duties—often involving the check and balance of the highest powers in the land—without fear of political retribution, the 1987 Constitution grants them a specialized status: Security of Tenure.

However, this "fortress" of protection is not absolute. To prevent the birth of a "judicial or administrative royalty" beyond the reach of the law, the Constitution provides specific, exclusive grounds and processes for their removal.

I. The Shield: Security of Tenure

Security of tenure means that an officer cannot be removed from their position except for cause and through the specific procedure mandated by the Constitution. This is vital for officers who must often rule against the government or investigate powerful individuals.

Who are the Constitutional Officers? While many officials are mentioned in the Constitution, the term generally refers to those whose offices are created by the Constitution itself, rather than by Congress. These include:

The President and Vice-President
Justices of the Supreme Court
Members of the Constitutional Commissions (CSC, COMELEC, and COA)
The Ombudsman

For most of these officers, their term is fixed (e.g., 7 years without reappointment for Commission Members), and they serve "during good behavior" until they reach the age of retirement or their term expires.

II. The Breach: Grounds for Removal

The 1987 Constitution is very specific about why a high-ranking official can be removed. Under Article XI, Section 2, the grounds for impeachment—which is the primary method of removal for the highest officials—are:

Culpable Violation of the Constitution: A deliberate and intentional breach of the fundamental law.
Treason: Levying war against the Philippines or adhering to its enemies.
Bribery: Accepting gifts or favors in exchange for official acts.
Graft and Corruption: Violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Other High Crimes: Crimes that strike at the very life of the state or involve a serious breach of public trust (e.g., murder, large-scale smuggling).
Betrayal of Public Trust: A "catch-all" ground that refers to acts that, while not necessarily criminal, are so gravity-laden that they render the official unfit to continue in office (e.g., cronyism, gross negligence, or systemic dishonesty).

III. The Mechanism: Impeachment vs. Quo Warranto

The Philippines recognizes two primary paths for removing Constitutional Officers, though one remains highly controversial.

1. Impeachment (The Political Process)

Impeachment is a political process with legal overtones. It is intended to protect the state, not to punish the individual (criminal prosecution may follow separately).

The House of Representatives: Acts as the "prosecutor." It has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. A vote of at least one-third of all Members is required to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
The Senate: Acts as the "Impeachment Court." It has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. To convict, a vote of two-thirds of all Senators is required.
The Penalty: Conviction results in removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Republic of the Philippines.

2. Quo Warranto (The Judicial Shortcut?)

Historically, it was believed that impeachment was the exclusive way to remove "impeachable officers." However, the landmark case of Republic v. Sereno (2018) established that a Petition for Quo Warranto is a valid move to remove an officer if the issue is the validity of their appointment from the beginning.

Unlike impeachment (which removes an officer for acts committed during their term), Quo Warranto questions the official's eligibility or legal right to hold the office at the time of appointment.

IV. Removal of "Other" Constitutional Officers

Not all officers created by the Constitution are subject to impeachment.

Lower Court Judges: While they have security of tenure until age 70, they are removed by the Supreme Court en banc for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct or other administrative grounds.
The Chairpersons and Members of the Constitutional Commissions: They are impeachable.
The Ombudsman: Is impeachable. However, the Deputies of the Ombudsman are not; they may be removed by the President for cause, as ruled in Gonzales v. Office of the President.

V. Summary Table of Removal Jurisdictions

Officer	Primary Removal Method	Deciding Body
President / Vice-President	Impeachment	Senate (Trial)
Supreme Court Justices	Impeachment / Quo Warranto	Senate / Supreme Court
Constitutional Commission Members	Impeachment	Senate (Trial)
Ombudsman	Impeachment	Senate (Trial)
Lower Court Judges	Administrative Case	Supreme Court

Note on Accountability: The strictness of these removal processes highlights the "Public Office is a Public Trust" principle. Security of tenure is not a shield for misconduct, but a guarantee of independence.

Would you like me to draft a summary of the specific Supreme Court cases that shaped these removal rules?