Process for charging a public official with legal offenses by the legislature(s)
This article is about the process of charging a public official. For challenging a witness in a legal proceeding, seeWitness impeachment. For theAmerican Crime Story season, seeImpeachment: American Crime Story.
Impeachment is a process by which alegislative body or other legally constituted tribunal initiates charges against apublic official for misconduct.[1][2] Impeachment tends to be confined toministerial officials[3] as the unique nature of their positions may place ministers beyond the reach of the law to prosecute, or their misconduct is not codified into law as an offense except through the unique expectations of their high office. Both "peers andcommoners" have been subject to the process, however.[4]
From 1990 to 2020, there have been at least 272 impeachment charges against 132 differentheads of state in 63 countries.[5] In Latin America, which includes almost 40% of the world'spresidential systems, ten presidents from seven countries were removed from office by their national legislatures via impeachments or declarations of incapacity between 1978 and 2019.[6]
Mostdemocracies (with the notable exception of the United States) involve the courts (often a nationalconstitutional court) in some way.[7][1] National legislations differ regarding both the consequences and definition of impeachment, but the intent is nearly always to expeditiously vacate the office.[3] Most commonly, an official is considered impeached after the commencement of the charges, and a trial of some kind is required to remove the official from office.[3]
Impeachment is distinct from themotion of no confidence procedure available in some countries whereby a motion ofcensure can be used to remove a government and its ministers from office. Such a procedure is not applicable in countries with presidential forms of government like the United States.[8] Because impeachment involves a departure from the normal constitutional procedures by which individuals achieve high office (election, ratification, or appointment) and because it generally requires asupermajority, it is usually reserved for those deemed to have committed serious abuses of their office.[9] In the United States, for example, impeachment at the federal level is limited to those who may have committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[10][11] Under theUnited States Constitution, theHouse of Representatives has the sole power of impeachments while theSenate has the sole power to try impeachments (i.e., to acquit or convict); the validity of an impeachment trial is apolitical question that isnonjusticiable (i.e., is not reviewable by the courts).[12]
The word "impeachment" likely derives fromOld Frenchempeechier fromLatin wordimpedīre expressing the idea of catching or ensnaring by the 'foot' (pes, pedis), and has analogues in the modernFrench verbempêcher (to prevent) and the modernEnglishimpede. Medieval popular etymology also associated it (wrongly) with derivations from the Latinimpetere (to attack).
The process was first used by the English "Good Parliament" againstWilliam Latimer, 4th Baron Latimer in the second half of the 14th century.[13] Following the English example, the constitutions ofVirginia (1776),Massachusetts (1780) and other states thereafter adopted the impeachment mechanism, but they restricted the punishment to removal of the official from office, in contrast to the English Parliament's broad power to punish impeachments.
InWest Africa, rulers of theAshanti Empire who violated anyoaths taken during their enstoolment were destooled byKingmakers.[14] Reasons include punishing citizens arbitrarily or being exposed as corrupt. The process involved Kingmakers forcibly removing the sandals of the guilty party, then bumping his buttocks on the ground three times. Once destooled, a king automatically lost sanctity and honours as he could not exercise royal powers such as being chief administrator, judge, and military commander. Also withdrawn from him were theGolden Stool (a throne functionally equivalent to crowns), swords, and otherregalia. While a deposed king no longer held custodianship of the realm, he remained a member of the royal family from which he was elected.[14]
InKorea, theGoryeo dynasty installed Sahundae (司憲臺) in 983 AD, which oversaw the impeachment of officials.[15]
In Brazil, as in most other Latin American countries, "impeachment" refers to the definitive removal from office. Thepresident of Brazil may be provisionally removed from office by theChamber of Deputies and then tried and definitely removed from office by theFederal Senate. TheBrazilian Constitution requires that two-thirds of the Deputies vote in favor of the opening of the impeachment process of the president and that two-thirds of the senators vote for impeachment. State governors and municipal mayors can also be impeached by the respective legislative bodies. Article 2 of Law no. 1.079, from 10 April 1950, or "The Law of Impeachment", states that "The crimes defined in this law, even when simply attempted, are subject to the penalty of loss of office, with disqualification for up to five years for the exercise of any public function, to be imposed by the Federal Senate in proceedings against the president of the republic, ministers of state, ministers of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, or the attorney general."
Initiation: An accusation of a responsibility crime against the president may be brought by any Brazilian citizen; however, the president of the Chamber of Deputies holds prerogative to accept the charge, which if accepted will be read at the next session and reported to the president of the republic.
Extraordinary Committee: An extraordinary committee is established, consisting of members from each political party in proportion to their party's membership. The committee is responsible for assessing the need for impeachment proceedings. The president is given ten parliamentary sessions to present their defense. Following this, two legislative sessions are held to allow for the formulation of a legal opinion by a rapporteur regarding whether or not impeachment proceedings should be initiated and brought to trial in the Senate.
The rapporteur's opinion is subject to a vote within the committee. If the majority accepts the rapporteur's opinion, it is deemed adopted. However, if the majority rejects the rapporteur's opinion, the committee adopts an alternative opinion proposed by the majority. For instance, if the rapporteur recommends against impeachment but fails to secure majority support, the committee will adopt the opinion to proceed with impeachment. Conversely, if the rapporteur advises impeachment but does not obtain majority approval, the committee will adopt the opinion not to impeach.
If the committee vote is successful, the rapporteur's opinion is considered adopted, thereby determining the course of action regarding impeachment.
Chamber of Deputies: The chamber issues a call-out vote to accept the opinion of the committee, requiring a supermajority of two thirds in favor of an impeachment opinion (or a supermajority of two thirds against a dismissal opinion) of the committee, in order to authorize the Senate impeachment proceedings. The president is suspended (provisionally removed) from office as soon as the Senate receives and accepts from the Chamber of Deputies the impeachment charges and decides to proceed with a trial.
The Senate: The process in the Senate had been historically lacking in procedural guidance until 1992, when the Senate published in the Official Diary of the Union the step-by-step procedure of the Senate's impeachment process, which involves the formation of another special committee and closely resembles the lower house process, with time constraints imposed on the steps taken. The committee's opinion must be presented within 10 days, after which it is put to a call-out vote at the next session. The vote must proceed within a single session; the vote on President Rousseff took over 20 hours. A simple majority vote in the Senate begins formal deliberation on the complaint, immediately suspends the president from office, installs the vice president as acting president, and begins a 20-day period for written defense as well as up to 180-days for the trial. In the event the trial proceeds slowly and exceeds 180 days, the Brazilian Constitution determines that the president is entitled to return and stay provisionally in office until the trial comes to its decision.
Senate plenary deliberation: The committee interrogates the accused or their counsel, from which they have a right to abstain, and also a probative session which guarantees the accused rights to contradiction, oraudiatur et altera pars, allowing access to the courts and due process of law under Article 5 of the constitution. The accused has 15 days to present written arguments in defense and answer to the evidence gathered, and then the committee shall issue an opinion on the merits within ten days. The entire package is published for each senator before a single plenary session issues a call-out vote, which shall proceed to trial on a simple majority and close the case otherwise.
Senate trial: A hearing for the complainant and the accused convenes within 48 hours of notification from deliberation, from which a trial is scheduled by the president of the Supreme Court no less than ten days after the hearing. The senators sit as judges, while witnesses are interrogated and cross-examined; all questions must be presented to the president of the Supreme Court, who, as prescribed in the Constitution, presides over the trial. The president of the Supreme Court allots time for debate and rebuttal, after which time the parties leave the chamber and the senators deliberate on the indictment. The president of the Supreme Court reads the summary of the grounds, the charges, the defense and the evidence to the Senate. The senators in turn issue their judgement. On conviction by a supermajority of two thirds, the president of the Supreme Court pronounces the sentence and the accused is immediately notified. If there is no supermajority for conviction, the accused is acquitted.
Upon conviction, the officeholder has his or her political rights revoked for eight years, which bars them from running for any office during that time.[16]
Fernando Collor de Mello, the 32nd president of Brazil, resigned in 1992 amidst impeachment proceedings. Despite his resignation, the Senate nonetheless voted to convict him and bar him from holding any office for eight years, due to evidence ofbribery and misappropriation.
In 2016, theChamber of Deputies initiatedan impeachment case against PresidentDilma Rousseff on allegations of budgetary mismanagement, a crime of responsibility under the Constitution.[17] On 12 May 2016, after 20 hours of deliberation, the admissibility of the accusation was approved by the Senate with 55 votes in favor and 22 against (an absolute majority would have been sufficient for this step) and Vice PresidentMichel Temer was notified to assume the duties of the president pending trial. On 31 August, 61 senators voted in favor of impeachment and 20 voted against it, thus achieving the2⁄3 majority needed for Rousseff's definitive removal. A vote to disqualify her for five years was taken and failed (in spite of the Constitution not separating disqualification from removal) having less than two thirds in favor.[16]
The process of impeaching thepresident of Croatia can be initiated by a two-thirds majority vote in favor in theSabor and is thereafter referred to theConstitutional Court, which must accept such a proposal with a two-thirds majority vote in favor in order for the president to be removed from office. This has never occurred in the history of theRepublic of Croatia. In case of a successful impeachment motion a president's constitutional term of five years would be terminated and an election called within 60 days of the vacancy occurring. During the period of vacancy the presidential powers and duties would be carried out by thespeaker of the Croatian Parliament in his/her capacity as Acting President of the Republic.[18]
In 2013, the constitution was changed. Since 2013, the process can be started by at least three-fifths of present senators, and must be approved by at least three-fifths of all members of theChamber of Deputies within three months. Also, thePresident can be impeached for high treason (newly defined in theConstitution) or any serious infringement of the Constitution.[19]
The process starts in theSenate of the Czech Republic which has the right to only impeach the president. After the approval by the Chamber of Deputies, the case is passed to theConstitutional Court of the Czech Republic, which has to decide the verdict against the president. If the Court finds the President guilty, then the President is removed from office and is permanently barred from being elected President of the Czech Republic again.[20]
No Czech president has ever been impeached, though members of the Senatesought to impeach President Václav Klaus in 2013.[21] This case was dismissed by the court, which reasoned that his mandate had expired.[22] The Senate also proposed to impeach presidentMiloš Zeman in 2019[23] but the Chamber of Deputies did not vote on the issue in time and thus the case did not even proceed to the Court.
In Denmark the possibility for current and former ministers being impeached was established with theDanish Constitution of 1849. Unlike many other countriesDenmark does not have aConstitutional Court who would normally handle these types of cases. Instead Denmark has a specialCourt of Impeachment (In Danish: Rigsretten) which is called upon every time a current and former minister have been impeached. The role of the Impeachment Court is to process and deliver judgments against current and former ministers who are accused of unlawful conduct in office. The legal content of ministerial responsibility is laid down in the Ministerial Accountability Act which has its background in section 13 of the Danish Constitution, according to which the ministers' accountability is determined in more detail by law. In Denmark the normal practice in terms of impeachment cases is that it needs to be brought up in theDanish Parliament (Folketing) first for debate between the different members and parties in the parliament. After the debate the members of the Danish Parliament vote on whether a current or former minister needs to be impeached. If there is a majority in the Danish Parliament for an impeachment case against a current or former minister, an Impeachment Court is called into session. In Denmark the Impeachment Court consists of up to 15 Supreme Court judges and 15 parliament members appointed by the Danish Parliament. The members of the Impeachment Court in Denmark serve a six-year term in this position.[24]
In 1995 the former Minister of Justice Erik Ninn-Hansen from theConservative People's Party was impeached in connection with theTamil Case. The case was centered around the illegal processing of family reunification applications. From September 1987 to January 1989 applications for family reunification of Tamil refugees from civil war-tornSri Lanka were put on hold in violation of Danish and International law. On 22 June 1995, Ninn-Hansen was found guilty of violating paragraph five subsection one of the Danish Ministerial Responsibility Act which says: A minister is punished if he intentionally or through gross negligence neglects the duties incumbent on him under the constitution or legislation in general or according to the nature of his post. A majority of the judges in that impeachment case voted for former Minister of Justice Erik Ninn-Hansen to receive a suspended sentence of four months with one year of probation. The reason why the sentence was made suspended was especially in relation to Ninn-Hansen's personal circumstances, in particular, his health and age – Ninn-Hansen was 73 years old when the sentence was handed down. After the verdict, Ninn-Hansen complained to the European Court of Human Rights and complained, among other things, that theCourt of Impeachment was not impartial. The European Court of Human Rights dismissed the complaint on 18 May 1999. As a direct result and consequence of this case, the Conservative-led government and Prime Minister at that time Poul Schlüter was forced to step down from power.[25]
In February 2021 the former Minister for Immigration and IntegrationInger Støjberg at that time member of the Danish Liberal PartyVenstre was impeached when it was discovered that she had possibly against both Danish and International law tried to separate couples in refugee centres in Denmark, as the wives of the couples were under legal age. According to a commission report Inger Støjberg had also lied in the Danish Parliament and failed to report relevant details to theParliamentary Ombudsman[26] The decision to initiate an impeachment case was adopted by the Danish Parliament with a 141–30 vote and decision (In Denmark 90 members of the parliament need to vote for impeachment before it can be implemented). On 13 December 2021 former Minister for Immigration and IntegrationInger Støjberg was convicted by the special Court of Impeachment of separating asylum seeker families illegally according to Danish and international law and sentenced to 60 days in prison.[27] The majority of the judges in the special Court of Impeachment (25 out of 26 judges) found that it had been proven that Inger Støjberg on 10 February 2016 decided that an accommodation scheme should apply without the possibility of exceptions, so that all asylum-seeking spouses and cohabiting couples where one was a minor aged 15–17, had to be separated and accommodated separately in separate asylum centers.[28] On 21 December, a majority in the Folketing voted that the sentence means that she is no longer worthy of sitting in the Folketing and she therefore immediately lost her seat.[29]
In France the comparable procedure is calleddestitution. Thepresident of France can be impeached by theFrench Parliament for willfully violating theConstitution or thenational laws. The process of impeachment is written in the 68th article of theFrench Constitution.[30] Either theNational Assembly or theSenate can begin the process. Then, the impeachment proposal must be transmitted to the other house, which must accept or reject the impeachment process within 15 days. After the upper and lower houses' agreement, they unite in joint session to form theHigh Court.
The High Court must decide whether or not to declare the removal from office of the president. The impeachment procedure in front of the National Assembly and the Senate, as well as the removal from office by theHigh Court require a majority of two thirds of the members of the House involved or of the High Court by secret ballot; no proxy voting is allowed.
Thefederal president of Germany can be impeached both by theBundestag and by theBundesrat for willfully violating federal law. Once the Bundestag or the Bundesrat impeaches the president, theFederal Constitutional Court decides whether the President is guilty as charged and, if this is the case, whether to remove him or her from office. The Federal Constitutional Court also has the power to remove federal judges from office for willfully violating core principles of thefederal constitution or astate constitution. The impeachment procedure is regulated in Article 61 of theBasic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.
There is no formal impeachment process for thechancellor of Germany; however, the Bundestag can replace the chancellor at any time by voting for a new chancellor (constructive vote of no confidence, Article 67 of the Basic Law).
There has never been an impeachment against the President so far. Constructive votes of no confidence against the chancellor occurred in 1972 and 1982, with only the second one being successful.
Thechief executive of Hong Kong can be impeached by theLegislative Council. A motion for investigation, initiated jointly by at least one-fourth of all the legislators charging the Chief Executive with "serious breach of law or dereliction of duty" and refusing to resign, shall first be passed by the council. An independent investigation committee, chaired by thechief justice of the Court of Final Appeal, will then carry out the investigation and report back to the council. If the Council find the evidence sufficient to substantiate the charges, it may pass a motion of impeachment by a two-thirds majority.[31]: Article 73(9)
However, the Legislative Council does not have the power to actually remove the chief executive from office, as the chief executive is appointed by theCentral People's Government (State Council of China). The council can only report the result to the Central People's Government for its decision.[31]: Article 45
Article 13 of Hungary'sFundamental Law (constitution) provides for the process of impeaching and removing thepresident. The president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution while in office, but may be charged with crimes committed during his term afterwards. Should the president violate the constitution while discharging his duties or commit a willful criminal offense, he may be removed from office. Removal proceedings may be proposed by the concurring recommendation of one-fifth of the 199 members of the country's unicameral Parliament. Parliament votes on the proposal by secret ballot, and if two thirds of all representatives agree, the president is impeached. Once impeached, the president's powers are suspended, and the Constitutional Court decides whether or not the President should be removed from office.[32][33]
Thepresident and judges, including the chief justice of thesupreme court and high courts, can be impeached by theparliament before the expiry of the term for violation of the Constitution. Other than impeachment, no other penalty can be given to a president in position for the violation of the Constitution underArticle 361 of the constitution. However, a president after his/her removal can be punished for her/his already proven unlawful activity underdisrespecting the constitution, etc.[34] No president has faced impeachment proceedings. Hence, the provisions for impeachment have never been tested. The sitting president cannot be charged and needs to step down in order for that to happen.
TheConstitution of Ireland states thePresident of Ireland may be impeached for "stated misbehaviour".[35] The president may not be otherwise removed from office or madeanswerable for his actions,[36] although if five judges of theSupreme Court rule that he has become "permanently incapacitated" then a newpresidential election must be held within 60 days and thePresidential Commission will deputise in the interim.[37] Impeachment is controlled by theOireachtas (parliament) with one house (Dáil orSeanad) preferring acharge and the other directing the ensuing investigation and final vote.[38] The charge requires amotion signed by at least thirty members and consequentresolution supported by at least two-thirds of the total membership.[39] The investigation may be made by the house itself or delegated to another "court, tribunal or body".[40] The president is removed from office only if at least two-thirds of the total membership of the investigating house support an ensuing resolution that, not only has the charge been sustained, but also the misbehaviour was serious enough to render the president "unfit to continue in office".[41][42]
As of January 2024[update] no impeachment of a president has ever taken place. The dignity of what is a largely ceremonial office is considered important, so it is likely that a president would resign from office long before undergoing formal conviction or impeachment. In 1976, after being criticised bya minister,Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh resigned "to protect the dignity and independence of the presidency as an institution", although there was no question of impeachment.[43]
While the Constitution also states thatComptroller and Auditor General and justices of thesuperior courts can be removed from office for "stated misbehaviour", it does not describe this asimpeachment and the requirement in each case is simple resolution by each house of the Oireachtas.[44] The process is nevertheless informally called "impeachment".[42]
In Italy, according to Article 90 of theConstitution, thePresident of Italy can be impeached through a majority vote of theParliament in joint session for high treason and for attempting to overthrow the Constitution. If impeached, the president of the Republic is then tried by the Constitutional Court integrated with sixteen citizens older than forty chosen by lot from a list compiled by the Parliament every nine years.
By Article 78 of theConstitution of Japan, judges can be impeached.[52] The voting method is specified by laws. TheNational Diet has two organs, namely裁判官訴追委員会 (Saibankan sotsui iinkai) and裁判官弾劾裁判所 (Saibankan dangai saibansho), which is established by Article 64 of the Constitution.[53] The former has a role similar to prosecutor and the latter is analogous to Court. Seven judges were removed by them.
Members of the Liechtenstein Government can be impeached before the State Court for breaches of the Constitution or of other laws.[54]: Article 62 As ahereditary monarchy theSovereign Prince cannot be impeached as he "is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and does not have legal responsibility".[54]: Article 7 The same is true of any member of thePrincely House who exercises the function of head of state should the Prince be temporarily prevented or in preparation for the Succession.[54]: Article 7
Members of government, representatives of the national assembly (Stortinget) andSupreme Court judges can be impeached for criminal offenses tied to their duties and committed in office, according to the Constitution of 1814, §§ 86 and 87. The procedural rules were modeled after the U.S. rules and are quite similar to them. Impeachment has been used eight times since 1814, last in 1927. Many argue that impeachment has fallen intodesuetude. In cases of impeachment, an appointed court (Riksrett) takes effect.
Thefirst impeachment process against Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, then the incumbentPresident of Peru since 2016, was initiated by theCongress of Peru on 15 December 2017. According toLuis Galarreta, the President of the Congress, the whole process of impeachment could have taken as little as a week to complete.[57] This event was part of the second stage of thepolitical crisis generated by the confrontation between the Government of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski and the Congress, in which the opposition Popular Force has an absolute majority. The impeachment request was rejected by the congress on 21 December 2017, for failing to obtain sufficient votes for the deposition.[58]
Since Kuczynski's failed impeachment, there have been three successful impeachments between 2020 and 2025, all of which have resulted in the removal ofMartín Vizcarra,Pedro Castillo, andDina Boluarte from office.
A main difference from U.S. proceedings, however, is that only one third of House members are required to approve the motion to impeach the president (as opposed to a simple majority of those present and voting in their U.S. counterpart). In the Senate, selected members of the House of Representatives act as the prosecutors and the senators act as judges with the Senate president presiding over the proceedings (the chief justice jointly presides with the Senate president if the president is on trial). Like the United States, to convict the official in question requires that a minimum of two thirds (i.e. 16 of 24 members) of all the members of the Senate vote in favor of conviction. If an impeachment attempt is unsuccessful or the official is acquitted, no new cases can be filed against that impeachable official for at least one full year.
In Poland, referral to theState Tribunal is used instead of the process of impeachment, which is traditionally used in some other nations as a way of addressing similar allegations against persons holding analogous offices.
Thepresident can be impeached byParliament and is then suspended. A referendum then follows to determine whether the suspended president should be removed from office. PresidentTraian Băsescu was impeached twice by the Parliament: in 2007 and then again in July 2012.A referendum was held on 19 May 2007 and a large majority of the electorate voted against removing the president from office. For the most recent suspensiona referendum was held on 29 July 2012; voters overwhelmingly approved Băsescu's impeachment, but the referendum was invalidated due to low turnout.[60]
TheConstitution of Singapore allows the impeachment of a sittingpresident on charges of treason, violation of the Constitution, corruption, or attempting to mislead the Presidential Elections Committee for the purpose of demonstrating eligibility to be elected as president. Theprime minister or at least one-quarter of allmembers of Parliament (MPs) can pass an impeachment motion, which can succeed only if at least half of all MPs (excluding nominated members) vote in favor, whereupon the chief justice of theSupreme Court will appoint a tribunal to investigate allegations against the president. If the tribunal finds the president guilty, or otherwise declares that the president is "permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity", Parliament will hold a vote on a resolution to remove the president from office, which requires a three-quarters majority to succeed.[64] No president has ever been removed from office in this fashion.
When theUnion of South Africa was established in 1910, the only officials who could be impeached (though the term itself was not used) were the chief justice and judges of theSupreme Court of South Africa. The scope was broadened when the country became a republic in 1961, to include thestate president. It was further broadened in 1981 to include the new office ofvice state president; and in 1994 to include theexecutive deputy presidents, thepublic protector and theAuditor-General. Since 1997, members of certain commissions established by the Constitution can also be impeached. The grounds for impeachment, and the procedures to be followed, have changed several times over the years.
The Constitutional Court of Korea holding a hearing in theimpeachment trial for PresidentYoon Suk Yeol, with Yoon in attendance (on the right) as the defendant, 21 January 2025
According to the Article 65(1) ofConstitution of South Korea,[65] thePresident, thePrime Minister, members of theState Council, heads of Executive Ministries,Justices of the Constitutional Court, judges, members of theNational Election Commission, the chairperson and members of theBoard of Audit and Inspection can be impeached by theNational Assembly if they violate the Constitution or other statutory duties. By article 65(2) of the Constitution, proposal of an impeachment motion requires at least a third of the members, while passage needs an absolute majority of votes among the entire membership of the National Assembly. However, exceptionally, the impeachment of a president needs an absolute majority to propose and a two-thirds supermajority of votes to pass among the entire membership of theNational Assembly. When the impeachment proposal is passed in the National Assembly, it is reviewed by theConstitutional Court of Korea, according to article 111(1) of the Constitution. During this process, the impeached officeholder is suspended from exercising power by article 65(3) of the Constitution.
In February 2021, Judge Lim Seong-geun of the Busan High Court was impeached by the National Assembly for meddling in politically sensitive trials, the first ever impeachment of a judge in Korean history. Unlike presidential impeachments, only a simple majority is required to impeach.[69] Judge Lim's term expired before the Constitutional Court could render a verdict, leading the court to dismiss the case without ruling on it merits.[70]
InTurkey, according to theConstitution, theGrand National Assembly may initiate an investigation of thepresident, thevice president or any member of theCabinet upon the proposal of simple majority of its total members, and within a period less than a month, the approval of three-fifths of the total members.[71] The investigation would be carried out by a commission of fifteen members of theAssembly, each nominated by the political parties in proportion to their representation therein. The commission would submit its report indicating the outcome of the investigation to thespeaker within two months. If the investigation is not completed within this period, the commission's time may be renewed for another month. Within ten days of its submission to the speaker, the report would be distributed to all members of theAssembly, and ten days after its distribution, the report would be discussed on the floor. Upon the approval of two thirds of the total number of theAssembly by secret vote, the person or persons, about whom the investigation was conducted, may be tried before theConstitutional Court. The trial would be finalized within three months, and if not, a one-time additional period of three months shall be granted.The president, about whom an investigation has been initiated, may not call for anelection. Thepresident, who is convicted by theCourt, would be removed from office.[citation needed]
The provision of this article shall also apply to the offenses for which the president allegedly worked during his term of office.[citation needed]
In the federal system,Article One of the United States Constitution provides that theHouse of Representatives has the "sole Power of Impeachment" and the Senate has "the sole Power to try all Impeachments".[74] Article Two provides that "The President, Vice President and all civilOfficers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,Treason,Bribery, or otherhigh Crimes and Misdemeanors."[75] In the United States, impeachment is the first of two stages; an official may be impeached by a majority vote of the House, but conviction and removal from office in the Senate requires "the concurrence of two thirds of the members present".[76] Impeachment is analogous to anindictment.[77]
According to the House practice manual, "Impeachment is a constitutional remedy to address serious offenses against the system of government. It is the first step in a remedial process – that of removal from public office and possible disqualification from holding further office. The purpose of impeachment is not punishment; rather, its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government."[78] Impeachment may be understood as a unique process involving bothpolitical andlegal elements.[79][10][80] The Constitution provides that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."[81] It was generally accepted that "a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate,"[82] though that standard has been challenged ina recent case which held that the president has immunity for all official acts.
Almost allstate constitutions set forth parallel impeachment procedures forstate governments, allowing thestate legislature to impeach officials of the state government.[86] From 1789 through 2008, 14governors have been impeached (including two who were impeached twice), of whom seven governors were convicted.[87]
^Landau, Sidney; Brantley, Sheila; Davis, Samuel; Koenigsberg, Ruth, eds. (1997).Funk & Wagnall's Standard Desk Dictionary. Vol. 1 (1996 ed.). United States: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. p. 322.ISBN978-0-308-10353-5.1. To charge (a high public official) before a legally constituted tribunal with crime or misdemeanor in office. 2. To bring discredit upon the honesty or validity of.
^abcDavidson, Roger (2005). "Impeachment".World Book Encyclopedia. Vol. I 10 (2005 ed.). Chicago. p. 92.ISBN0-7166-0105-2.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^"Impeachment".UK Parliament Glossary.Archived from the original on 8 February 2021. Retrieved5 February 2021.Impeachment is when a peer or commoner is accused of 'high crimes and misdemeanours, beyond the reach of the law or which no other authority in the state will prosecute.'
^abMichael J. Gerhardt (2019).The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis (3d ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 106–07.ISBN9780226554976.The ratification debates support the conclusion that 'other high Crimes and Misdemeanors' were not limited to indictable offenses but rather included great offenses against the federal government. ... Justices James Wilson and Joseph Story expressed agreement with Hamilton's understanding of impeachment as a political proceeding and impeachable offenses as political crimes.
^Peter Brandon Bayer (23 May 2019). "The Constitution dictates that impeachment must not be partisan".The Conversation.Noted scholarsRonald Rotunda and John Nowak explain that the Framers wisely intended the phrase "or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" to include undermining the Constitution and similar, "great offenses against the federal government (like abuse of power) even if they are not necessarily crimes.' For instance, Alexander Hamilton asserted that, while likely to be criminal acts, impeachable wrongdoings 'are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men ... from the abuse or violation of some public trust.' James Madison urged that impeachment is appropriate for 'loss of capacity, or corruption ... [that] might be fatal to the republic.'
^"Impeachment".U.S. Constitution Annotated. Congressional Research Service.Archived from the original on 14 February 2021. Retrieved15 February 2021 – via Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School.
^송, 춘영(대구교육대학, 한국사)."사헌대 (司憲臺)".한국민족문화대백과사전 [Encyclopedia of Korean Culture] (in Korean). Academy of Korean Studies.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ab"Basic Law of Hong Kong".basiclaw.gov.hk. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. Archived fromthe original on 30 December 2014. Retrieved13 November 2016.
^abCahillane, Laura; Hickey, Tom (10 November 2023). "'Impeachment' in Irish Constitutional Law". In Monaghan, Chris; Flinders, Matthew (eds.).British Origins and American Practice of Impeachment (1st ed.). pp. 132–154.doi:10.4324/9781003255956.ISBN9781003255956.
^Gerhardt, Michael (2018).Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. p. 20.ISBN978-0190903657.LCCN2018013560.Impeachment has elements of both legal and political proceedings. As a result, it is a unique process.
.jpg)
