There is no basis for the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to inhibit in the case.

However, the right of a party to seek the inhibition or disqualication of a judge who does not appear to
be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling the case must be balanced with the
latter's sacred duty to decide cases without fear of repression. The movant must therefore prove the
ground of bias and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge from participating in
a particular trial. Justice Tijam's statements in the Manila Times article reveals that the manifest intent
of the statements was only to prod respondent to observe and respect the constitutional process of
impeachment, and to exemplify the ideals of public accountability.

Mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is
without basis. This Court has to be shown acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice
before it can brand them with the stigma of bias or partiality.

In this case, it does not appear that there are grounds for compulsory inhibition. As to voluntary
inhibition, the mere fact that some of the Associate Justices participated in the hearings of the
Committee on Justice determining probable cause for the impeachment of respondent does not make
them disqualified to hear the instant petition. Their appearance thereat was in deference to the House
of Representatives whose constitutional duty to investigate the impeachment complaint led against
respondent could not be doubted. Their appearance was with the prior consent of the Supreme Court
En Banc and they faithfully observed the parameters that the Court set for the purpose. Their
statements in the hearing, should be carefully viewed within this context, and should not be hastily
interpreted as an adverse attack against respondent.