certiorari ibohhmpeachment

7/30/2019 Certiorari Ibohhmpeachment

1/57

1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

Manila

REP. CLAVEL A. MARTINEZ(4th Dist., Cebu),HERMINIO HARRY L.ROQUE, JR., JOEL RUIZBUTUYAN, ROGER R.RAYEL, ALFREDO LIGON III,GARY S. MALLARI, ROMELREGALADO BAGARES, andCHRISTOPHER F.C.BOLASTIG,

Petitioners,

X__________________________X

-versus-

Case No. ______________

Certiorari and Madamusunder RULE 65

THE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVESof the13th CONGRESS, represented byREP. JOSE DE VENECIA, Speakerof the House of Representativesand the COMMITTEE ONJUSTICE, represented by REP.SIMEON DATUMANONG,Committee Chairperson,

Respondents.

X__________________________X


2/57

2

P E T I T I O N FOR CERTIORARI

A. PREFATORY STATEMENT

1. Ours is a Constitution tempered by the fires of its time. Borne out of a long

struggle for freedom from Martial Law, it has given us a Supreme Court of

innovation,1 one that, in fact, is endowed with expansive powers of, and

yes, duty to, review cases and controversies.

2. Indeed, it is a Constitution that has entrusted upon our High Court the

dutyto settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally

demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been

a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the

part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.2

3. What we then have is a system of judicial review that, as the Supreme Court

has noted in one landmark ruling not too long ago, broadens the scope of

judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions,

would have normally left to the political departments to decide.3

1See Taada v. Angara,G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997.

2 CONST., art. VIII, 1.

3 Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 881211, September 15, 1989; 177 SCRA 695 (1989).


3/57

3

4. Under this system, as Justice Roberto Concepcion, the principal proponent of

this innovation, would put it,

The judicial power is meant to be a check against all powersof government without exception, except that judicial powermust be exercised within the limits confined thereto. Amatter of national defense, national interest, nationalwelfare is not necessarily beyond the jurisdiction of judicialpower.4

5. The doctrinal reaffirmation of this bedrock principle of a constitutionally

canalized duty of judicial review finds a relevant restatement in a recent

landmark ruling that casts a long shadow over this instant Petitions path:

There can be no constitutional crisis arising from a conflict,no matter how passionate and seemingly irreconcilable itmay appear to be, over the determination of the nature,scope and extent of their respective constitutional powers

where the Constitution itself provides for the means andbases of its resolution...5

6. Today, the duty of the Court to check the abusive acts of another branch of

government in this case, the legislature, in what, in other jurisdictions,

would constitute a political question immune to judicial intervention is

once again being invoked.

7. In this instance, the Petitioners argue that an impeachment proceeding

against the Chief Executive, though described by the same Constitution as

primarily an act of Congress, is not without well-defined constitutional

4 III RECORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 645-646 (1986).

5 Francisco, et al., v. House of Representatives, et al., G.R. No. 160206, November 10,2003.[Hereinafter,Francisco case].


4/57

4

parameters; where those charged by the Constitution with the sole power to

prosecute an impeachable public officerin this case, Gloria Macapagal-

Arroyo, President of the Philippines transgressed the bounds set by the

same Constitution for the exercise of such power, it would be a clear

stultification of its constitutional responsibility, to borrow from the

language of Justice Cardozo,6 if the Supreme Court refuses to lift a finger to

resolve a constitutional controversy of supreme transcendental and national

importance. 7

6 BENJAMIN CARDOZO, THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS 92 (1921).

7 The point can well be seen in the following excerpts from a debate in the 1986 ConstitutionalCommission deliberations :

MR. TREAS. Madam President, may I just ask a few questions of theCommittee for clarification.

According to Section 3, subparagraph 2, after a complaint forimpeachment is filed, it is referred to the proper committee of the Housefor investigation and report. My question now is: If after the investigationand report, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence in support of thecomplaint for impeachment and taking into account political

considerations, especially if it is an impeachment against the presidentand the House is controlled by his party, and necessarily the committeealso, it is dismissed, the complaint is already denied, am I right?

MR. ROMULO. Yes, that is right.

MR. TREAS. Will the person who filed the impeachment have anyremedy in view of the overwhelming evidence and the fact that thecommittee acted in a capricious and whimsical manner?

MR. ROMULO. Under this proposal, the answer must be no that is whyI think Commissioner Davide has some amendments in mind to curethese gaps in the procedure.

MR. TREAS. May it not be subject of a judicial review?

MR. ROMULO. As the Commissioner knows, in the definition of judicialpower, one might be able to secure a review by certiorari, but that is notan expeditious remedy. So, we are open to suggestions. II RECORDSOF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 287 (1986). [underliningsupplied].


5/57

5

8. Once again, the Supreme Court is cast into the eye of a storm, as

constitutional decision-making involves policy-making and, in that sense,

politics8

9. But as it fulfilled its constitutionally-mandated duty in the Francisco case,9

when the High Tribunal struck the impeachment proceedings against its very

Chief Justice, Hilario Davide Jr., as unconstitutional, so should it now

squarely confront this constitutional issue of transcendental ramifications on

our national life, and slay the hydra.

B. PARTIES

10. The Petitioner, Clavel A. Martinez (4th Dist. Cebu), is one of the members of

the House of Representatives of the 13th Congress who had sought to impeach

the President of the Philippines. She is an endorser of one of the

impeachment complaints the amended one in question in this instant case

and is filing this Petition on the legal doctrine that legislators have standing to

maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers, and privileges vested by the

Constitution in their office,10 and are allowed to sue to question the validity of

any official action which infringes their prerogatives as legislators.11

8Vicente V. Mendoza, The Protection ofLiberties and Citizens Rights: The Role of the PhilippineSupreme Court, 21 HUMAN RIGHTS L. J. 129 (1999); also excerpted in VICENTE V.V.MENDOZA, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS: CASES ANDMATERIALS 296 (2004).

9G.R. No. 160206, November 10, 2003.

10 Del Mar v. PAGCOR, G.R. No.138298, November 29, 2000.

11 Kilosbayan v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, November 16, 1995. See also Philippine InternationalAir Terminals Co., G.R. No.155001, May 5, 2003.


6/57

6

11. The Petitioners below, filing the instant Petition in propria personae, are

members of theRoque and Butuyan Law Offices. They are members in good

standing of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, who, as officers of the court,

and as taxpayers and citizens, have a direct interest in the faithful adherence

to constitutional processes of their elected representatives in Congress12:

11.1. Herminio Harry L. Roque Jr.;

11.2. Joel Ruiz Butuyan;

11.3. Roger R. Rayel;

11.4. Alfredo Ligon III;

11.5. Gary S. Mallari;

11.6. Romel Regalado Bagares; and

11.7. Christopher F.C. Bolastig.

12. Respondent, the House of Representatives of the 13th Congress, is represented

by Rep. Jose De Venecia, the incumbent House Speaker.

12 For one, their oath as lawyers obligates them to support the Constitution. Also, as held in the

Francisco case:

When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner assailing theconstitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must beable to show, not only that the law or government act is invalid, but alsothat he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some directinjury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffersthereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the personcomplaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to

which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to someburdens or penalties by reason of the statue or act complained of. Infine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a publicright, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies therequirement of personal interest. GR. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003.[emphasis supplied].


7/57

7

13. Respondent, The Committee on Justice, is represented by Rep. Simeon

Datumanong, the incumbent Committee chairperson.

14. The Respondents may be served with court processes at the House of

Representatives, Batasan Complex, National Government Center, Quezon

City.

C. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

15. On June 27, 2005, lawyer Oliver Lozano filed an unverified complaint for

impeachment against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines

with the House of Representatives of the 13th Congress. hereinafter

ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT].13 It was endorsed by Rep. Rodante

Marcoleta of the Alagad party-list TWO DAYS LATER, on July 29, 2005t.14

16. On June 28, 2005 Lozano filed a supplemental complaint of the same date.15

17. On June 29, 2005, Lozano submitted to the House of Representatives a

second supplemental complaint of the same date.16

13 A copy of the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT is attached as ANNEX A.

14 A copy of the Marcoleta Resolution of Endorsement is attached as ANNEX B.

15 A copy of the [first] supplemental complaint is attached as ANNEX A-1.

16 A copy of second supplemental complaint is attached as ANNEX A-2.


8/57

8

18. On June 30, 2005, he filed a third supplemental complaint of the same date.17

19. On the same day, lawyer Joselito Rizaldo Lopez filed a Motion and

Manifestation for Leave to be allowed to be a Co-complainant of Atty. Oliver

Lozano Relative to his Complaint for Impeachmentof the same date.18

20. On July 4, 2005, Lozano filed a fourth supplemental complaint dated July 1,

200519, and a fifth supplemental complaint20 dated July 4, 2005.

21. On the same day, Lopez filed his own impeachment complaint, also

unverified, charging Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines,

with betrayal of public trust.21 [hereinafter, LOPEZ COMPLAINT]. The

complaint, curiously similar in language and substance to the ORIGINAL

LOZANO COMPLAINT, was endorsed by Rep. Antonio Alvarez (1st Dist.

Palawan).22

22. On July 5, 2005, Lozano submitted to the House of Representatives a sixth

supplemental complaint of the same date.23

17 A copy of the third supplemental complaint is attached as ANNEX A-3.

18 A copy of the Lopez Motion and Manifestation is attached as ANNEX C.

19 A copy of the fourth supplemental complaint is attached as ANNEX A-4.

20 A copy of the fifth supplemental complaint is attached as ANNEX A-5.

21 A copy of the LOPEZ COMPLAINT is attached as ANNEX D.

22 A copy of the Alvarez Resolution of Endorsement is attached as ANNEX D-1.

23 A copy of the sixth supplemental complaint is attached as ANNEX A-6.


9/57

9

23. On July 18, 2005, Rep. Rolex Suplico endorsed the ORIGINAL LOZANO

COMPLAINT.24

24.On July 19, 2005, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines filed

through lawyer Pedro M. Ferrer an Answer Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam

dated July 18, 2005[hereinafter,ANSWER].25

25. On July 21, 2005, Lozano filed a seventh supplemental complaint of the same

date.26 It should be stressed that none of the seven supplemental complaints

was endorsed.

26. On July 25, 2005, at 8:01 a.m., House Speaker De Venecia referred to the

Secretary General of the House of Representatives the ORIGINAL LOZANO

COMPLAINT, the resolutions for endorsement filed by Rep. Marcoleta and

Rex Suplico, along with other documents:27

27. That same day, at around 9:30 a.m. members of the Minority bloc in the

House of Representatives, party-list representatives, and joined by concerned

private citizens filed an AMENDED COMPLAINT before the Office of the

24A copy of the Suplico Resolution of Endorsement is attached as ANNEX B-1. The Committee onJustice puts it at July 14, 2005. See infra note 36, COMMITTEE REPORT 1012 at 2.

25 A copy of the ANSWER is attached as ANNEX E.

26 A copy of the seventh supplemental complaint is attached as ANNEX A-7.

27 A copy of the Speakers Memorandum to the Secretary General dated July 25, 2005 is attachedas ANNEX F.


10/57

10

Secretary General of the House of Representatives.28 Lozano himself joined as

a complainant in theAMENDED COMPLAINT, with a signed verification.

28. The same day, in a meeting of the House of Representatives in plenary the

Secretary General, upon direction of the Speaker of the House of

Representatives read on First Reading the three complaints,29 simultaneously

referring all three complaints to the Committee on Justice.

29. On July 26, 2005, the Deputy Secretary General of the House of

Representatives subsequently transmitted all three complaints the

ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, the AMENDED COMPLAINT, and the

LOPEZ COMPLAINT in one bundle of papers to the Committee on Justice,

which simultaneously received them at 4:20 p.m. of the same day.

30. On the same day, July 26, 2005, Lopez filed a Motion and Affidavit of

Withdrawal/Desistance.30

28 A copy of the AMENDED COMPLAINT is attached as ANNEX G. The complaint carried theheading thus: In Re Impeachment of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President, Republic of thePhilippines.

29A copy of the Journal records containing the pertinent information is attached as ANNEX G-1[H.R. JOURNAL, 13th CONG. 2d Sess. 17-18 (July 25, 2005)]. See also ANNEX G-2, a copy of theOrder of Business of the House of Representatives in plenary, for July 25, 2005, under the section

Reference of Business, through which the three complaints were simultaneously referred to theCommittee on Justice.

30 A copy of theMotion and Affidavit of Withdrawalis attached as ANNEX H-4


11/57

11

31. On August 1, 2005, the House of Representative sitting in plenary adopted a

new set ofRules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings [hereinafter,

RULES OF PROCEDURE].31

32. On August 3, 2005, Lopez filed aRescission of Withdrawal.32

33. On August 10, 2005, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines,

filed through her lawyer aMotion to Strike of the same date.33

34. It was also the same day the Committee opened its first hearing of the

impeachment proceeding against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the

Philippines.

35. Instead of immediately determining the sufficiency of form and substance of

the three complaints, the Committee chairperson, Rep. Simeon Datumanong,

(2nd Dist. Maguindanao), allowed Rep. Edcel C. Lagman (1st Dist. Albay) to

present a list of seven prejudicial questions, 34 to wit:

31 A copy of the RULES OF PROCEDURE is attached as ANNEX F-1.

32A copy of theRescission of Withdrawalis attached as ANNEX H-5.

33 A copy of theMotion to Strike is attached as ANNEX I.

34 A copy of the Lagman list of prejudicial questions is attached as ANNEX J.


12/57

12

35.1. Was the amended complaint which was filed on 25 July 2005

properly or seasonably interposed or is it a prohibited pleading under

Article XI of the Constitution and the pertinent Rules on Impeachment of

the House of Representatives?

35.2. Considering that the amended complaint was file don 25 July 2005

when the House had not yet adopted the Rules of Procedure on

Impeachment in the 13th Congress, under what standard or rule should

the filing of the amended complaint be assessed?

35.3. Since the amended complaint radically and substantially

supplanted the original Lozano complaint, should it be considered as a

separate, independent and new complaint?

35.4. If it is considered a separate or new complaint, is it barred by the

one-year rule which provides that no impeachment proceedings shall be

initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one

year.35

35.5. How will the amended complaint be assessed under the standard or

definition of initiating impeachment proceedings in the case of Ernesto B.

Francisco Jr., et al. v. House of Representatives, et al.,36

?

35Rep. Lagman referred to CONST. Art. XI, 3(5) here.

36G.R. No. 160206, November 10, 2003.


13/57

13

35.6. Did the amended complaint supersede the original Lozano

complaint so much so that the Lozano complaint will be subsumed under

the amended complaint and considering further that Atty. Oliver Lozano

signed the verification attached to the amended complaint thereby giving

his conformity to the amended complaint?

35.7. What is the import and effect of respondents filing of an early

answer on the amended complaint?

36. In that same hearing, Rep. Datumanong also raised the following issues:

36.1. Whether or not to consider the impeachment complaints one by

one as referred by the House;

36.2. Whether or not to consolidate the complaints like bills of the same

subject matter pending before a Committee of the House;

36.3. What is the effect of the Amended Complaint, which was the third

to be referred by the House to the Committee, on the first complaint of

Atty. Lozano?37

37 These issues were reflected in theAgenda sent out by the Committee the next day, along with aNotice of Meeting, seeinfra note 38.


14/57

14

37. However, before the Committee on Justice could discuss the prejudicial

questions and Rep. Datumanongs above-quoted issues, the hearing was

suspended after members of the Minority bloc in the Committee, led by Rep.

Suplico, questioned the chairs ruling that that only regular and ex officio

members of the committee will be allowed to participate in the debates.

Thereafter, the chair moved for an executive session to resolve the

controversy.

38. On August 11, 2005 the Committee on Justice sent out notices to its members

regarding two hearings set for August 16-17, 2005, along with theAgenda for

the hearings.38 Without the prior approval of the members of the Committee

on Justice, Rep. Datumanong included in the Agenda, the above-quoted

issues and Rep. Lagmans prejudicial questions.

39. On August 16, 2005, despite the objections raised by many members of the

pro-impeachment bloc, the chairperson, Rep. Datumanong proceeded with

deliberations on the prejudicial questions.

40. The next several hearings of the Committee on Justice was marked by

protracted debates on the propriety of deliberating over the prejudicial

questions, with the majority, by sheer force of number, prevailing over the

minority when it came to a vote, 54-24, on August 23, 2005.

38A copy of theNotice of Meeting is attached as ANNEX K ; a certified true copy of the Agenda isattached as ANNEX K-1


15/57

15

41. In the end, the Committee on Justice whittled the prejudicial questions

down to two questions that would prove prejudicial to the AMENDED

COMPLAINT: (a) Is the AMENDED COMPLAINTfiled on 25 July 2005 a

separate and new complaint instead of amendatory to the Lozano complaint

filed on 25 July 2005 a separate and new complaint instead of amendatory to

the Lozano complaint filed on 27 June 2005? (b) Did the Lozano complaint

bar the Lopez complaint and the AMENDED COMPLAINTpursuant to Art.

XII 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution?39

42. On August 30, 2005, members of the minority walked out of the hearing of

the Committee on Justice, denouncing it as a sham proceeding and

declaring that they will no longer participate in the deliberations.

43. This came after Rep. Datumanong moved to finally put to a vote the first

prejudicial question on whether the amended impeachment complaint is

separate and distinct from the one originally filed by Lozano against Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines, over objections raised by

members of the minority that the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT was a

sham complaint.

44. Rep. Datumanong also denied an appeal made by Rep. Robert Ace Barbers

(2nd

Dist. Surigao Del Norte) to defer the voting and allow him to speak on a

revelation made by former Social Welfare Secretary Dinky Soliman at a press

conference in Makati City that morning that the ORIGINAL LOZANO

39See ANNEX L, infra, at 13.


16/57

16

COMPLAINT was part of a plot by Malacaang to preempt a genuine

impeachment proceeding against the President.40

45. The walkout did not deter the majority in the Committee on Justice from

continuing with the proceedings and voting on the two prejudicial questions.

46. Despite the absence of member of the minority in the proceedings, the

Committee on Justice (a) voted 46-0, with one abstention, to declare the

ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINTas being sufficient in form; and (b) voted

49-1, with two abstentions, to declare the same complaint insufficient in

substance.

47. By the first vote, the Committee on Justice held the AMENDED

IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTand theLOPEZ COMPLAINTas separate and

distinct from the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, and deemed these two

other complaints as barred by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the

Francisco case. By the second vote, the Committee on Justice effectively shut

down the impeachment proceeding against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,

President of the Philippines.

40For an account of the walkout and the subsequent events involving the Committee on Justice,seeAlecks Pabico,Lutong MakawPhilippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), August30, 2005, available at http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=343 ; and

Alecks Pabico, Lozano Complaint Sufficient in Form, Philippine Center for InvestigativeJournalism (PCIJ), August 31, 2005, available at http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=349 .
http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=343http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=349http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=349http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=343


17/57

17

48. The decision by vote of the majority of the Committee on Justice (a) to

treat the AMENDED COMPLAINT and the ORIGINAL LOZANO

COMPLAINTas separate and distinct from each another; (b) to dismiss the

AMENDED COMPLAINTand theLOPEZ COMPLAINTfor supposedly being

barred by the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, and eventually, (c) to

dismiss the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT for being insufficient in

substance despite being sufficient in form was carried, among other matters,

in a Committee Report subsequently transmitted to the House of

Representatives sitting in plenary.41

49. The dispositive portion of COMMITTEE REPORT 1012 reads thus:

ACCORDINGLY, the Committee on Justice finds, resolvesand concludes that:

1. The Amended Complaint which was filed on 25 July2006 is a new and separate complaint which is notmerely amendatory to the Lozano Complaint which wasfiled on 27 June 2005;

2. The Lozano Complaint, having been filed and referredto the Committee on Justice or initiated before theLopez Complaint, which was filed on 04 July 2005, andthe Amended Complaint, which was filed on 25 July2005, barred the two subsequent complaints pursuant to

the one-year bar rule provided for in Section 3(5) ofArticle XI of the 1987 Constitution;

3. The Lozano Complaint, while sufficient in form, isdeficient in substance; and

4. The Amended Complaint and the Lopez Complaintare dismissed for being prohibited complaints and theLozano Complaint is dismissed for not being sufficientin substance.

These dispositions confirm the Committee Report approvedin principle by the requisite majority on 31 August 2005.

41 A certified true copy of the H.R. REP. No. 1012 (Sept. 5, 2005) is attached as ANNEXL.[Hereinafter, COMMITTEE REPORT 1012).


18/57

18

It is further recommended that this Committee Report andits accompanying Resolution be approved in a Plenary Rollcall vote pursuant to Section 3(3) of Article XI of the 1987Constitution.42

50. On September 6, 2005, the House of Representatives by a vote of more than

two-thirds of all its Members, decided to affirm the action and report of the

Committee on Justice. The House of Representatives voted 158-51, with six

abstentions, to approve COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, dismissing all three

impeachment complaints filed before the chamber.43

51. Under the Rules adopted on October 27, 2004 by the House of

Representatives [hereinafter, HOUSE RULES] to govern its proceedings,

when a measure is adopted or lost, a member of the committee who voted

with the majority, may move for its reconsideration on the same or succeeding

day. TheHOUSE RULESonly allows one (1) motion for reconsideration.44

52. The opportunity to revive the impeachment proceeding against Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines, came on September 19, 2005,

when the House of Representatives of the 13th Congress resumed session.

42 COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, at 33-34.

43 A certified true copy of the record of proceedings of the House of Representatives voting inplenary to ratify and accept COMMITTEE REPORT 1012 is attached as ANNEX M. In any case,this matter can well be considered as one of public record, and of judicial notice. See also thePhilippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) blog entry, by Alecks Pabico, A Death

Foretold, for a news report of the results of the vote, available athttp://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=367 . It must also be said thatmembers of the pro-impeachment bloc had vigorously objected to what they said was thequestionable manner in which it was drafted.

44HOUSE RULES, Chap. IX, 39.
http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=367http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=367


19/57

19

53. However, a lack of quorum barred the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration

as so described in the HOUSE RULES.45 It in effect made such filing moot

and academic.

45 This is now a matter of judicial notice. For an account of what transpired at the House ofRepresentatives on that day, the Petitioners reproduce here in full the following newspaperarticle regarding the matter:

Lack of House quorum foils effort to revive impeachment

Lack of quorum in the House of Representatives during yesterdaysresumption of sessions effectively barred pro-impeachment lawmakersfrom reviving their junked complaint against President Arroyo,effectively burying the issue six feet under.

Only 104 of the 236 members of the chamber showed up yesterday,which forced Congress to adjourn the session shortly before 5 p.m. Some50 House members are still out of the country, mostly in New York wherethey attended the United Nations summit.

The absence of deliberations in the House plenary prevented a memberof the majority, whom members of the minority were banking on, to raisea motion for reconsideration on the Sept. 6 historic ruling that voted 158-51 to junk the complaints.

Under the rules, any congressman who voted in the majority (neither ofthe opposition nor one of six lawmakers who abstained) can raise theappeal on the next session day immediately after voting was completed,or yesterday.

"Procedurally, the impeachment is dead. And Congress can do nothingabout it," House Minority Leader Francis Escudero acknowledged toreporters, at the same time warning Mrs. Arroyo that the issue willcontinue to "haunt and hound" her wherever she goes.

His colleague, Cibac party-list Rep. Joel Villanueva, son of evangelist Bro.Eddie Villanueva who also joined calls for Mrs. Arroyos ouster, said this

has always been the majoritys tack, to win on technicalities. "Its alwaysbeen a technical knockout."

Pro-impeachment Rep. Rolex Suplico of Iloilo City questioned the way inwhich Congress computed the quorum, saying the 50 lawmakers abroadshould be excluded from the computation because they cannot becompelled to attend sessions.

"The computation should be 236 minus 50, which equals 186, divided bytwo, then 93 comes up, then you add one. Thats 94," he stressed, citing aprecedent in jurisprudence,Avelino vs Cuenco.

Chances of bringing the case to the Supreme Court, according to SanJuan Rep. Ronaldo Zamora, head of the impeachment legal team, arealso nil, following the dismissal of two separate petitions filed by lawyersOliver Lozano and Ernesto Francisco Jr.

"Were looking at a peoples tribunal or peoples court. Of course, we alsodont want to have a kangaroo court. Thats what we are discussing rightnow. Its not extra-constitutional but I dont think theres somethingillegal about it," he said.

Sorsogon City Rep. Escudero said the challenge now is for Mrs. Arroyo to


20/57

20

D. NATURE OF THE CASE

54. This is aPetition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the RULES

OF COURT.

55. This Petition asks of this Honorable Court to nullify the constitutionally

contemptible acts of the Committee on Justice as embodied in COMMITTEE

REPORT 1012, and their affirmation by the House of Representatives of the

13th Congress, voting in plenary, and to direct the House of Representatives to

designate her legal team to defend her on charges that she cheated herway to victory in the May 2004 polls.

The opposition may only file another impeachment petition a year fromnow.

Wishful thinking

Administration lawmakers, meantime, described as "wishful thinking"

attempts by their opponents to revive the impeachment complaint, as the158 congressmen who voted to dismiss the complaint remain "solid."

"No amount of propaganda or bluffing can persuade anyone from themajority to support the complainants bid to reverse the House decision,"Eastern Samar Rep. Marcelino Libanan said.

"There is no chance the pro-impeachment group can convince anyonefrom the anti-impeachment congressmen to move for reconsideration.The 158 votes are still solid," he added.

Davao del Sur Rep. Douglas Cagas urged their colleagues instead to focuson their legislative priorities. "The pro-impeachment group should stop

living in the past and thinking of what-might-have-beens."

"The nation needs to focus on urgent problems and concerns. Surely thepro-impeachment solons did not run for office just to oust the President.They should not be too obsessed with this undertaking," he said.

As this developed, the fate of Ilocos Norte Rep. Imee Marcos and herstatus in the House minority bloc is still undecided as Escudero said theirreorganization depends on the "movements" of those in the majority,

who may also purge their ranks.

The daughter of the late strongman is in danger of losing hermembership on the powerful Commission on Appointments, the lone slotprovided to the minority bloc, following her mysterious absence duringthe historic House plenary voting junking the impeachment complaint.

See Delon Porcalla, Lack of Quorom Foils Effort to ReviveImpeachment, The Philippine Star, September 20, 2005, available athttp://philstar.com/philstar/News200509200403.htm .
http://philstar.com/philstar/News200509200403.htmhttp://philstar.com/philstar/News200509200403.htm


21/57

21

remand the AMENDED COMPLAINT to the Committee on Justice for a

constitutional determination of its sufficiency of form and substance.

56. The Petitioners, on account of the instant suits urgent, novel and

transcendental nature, assert that there is no other plain, speedy and

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

E. TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

57. On September 7, 2005, the Petitioners received a certified true copy of

COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, of the Committee on Justice dated September 5,

2005. Subsequently, on September 8, 2005, the Petitioners received a

certified true copy of record of the questioned plenary vote.

58. Under Rule 65, 4 of theRULES OF COURT, the Petitioners have sixty (60)

days from the date of the questioned acts or the date of receipt of the

questioned documents within which to file this Petition to question

COMMITTEE REPORT 1012 and the plenary vote made to affirm and accept

its findings and conclusions.

59. This Petition is therefore, filed on time. The corresponding docket and other

lawful fees and deposit for costs are paid simultaneously with the filing of this

Petition.


22/57

22

F. SUBMISSIONS

I.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY COMMITTEDGRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESSOF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RATIFIED BY VOTE OF 158-51, THEDECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE BY MAJORITY VOTE,

AND AS EMBODIED IN COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, TO DISCUSSPREJUDICIAL AND THRESHOLD QUESTIONS AHEAD OF ADETERMINATION OF THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE THREEIMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTS, IN VIOLATION OF THECONSTITUTION AND ITS OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE.

II.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY COMMITTEDGRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESSOF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RATIFIED BY A VOTE OF 158-51, THEDECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE BY MAJORITY VOTE,

AND AS EMBODIED IN COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, TO TREAT THEAMENDED COMPLAINT AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THEORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, CONSIDERING THAT THEDEFECTIVE ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT HAS ALREADY BEENSUPERSEDED BY THE AMENDED COMPLAINTWHILE THE LOPEZ

COMPLAINT, IT BEING FRAUGHT WITH PROCEDURAL ANDSUBSTANTIVE INFIRMITIES, IS OF NO LEGAL EFFECT.

III.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY COMMITTEDGRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESSOF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RATIFIED BY A VOTE OF 158-51, THEDECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE BY MAJORITY VOTE,

AND AS EMBODIED IN COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, TO DISMISSTHE AMENDED COMPLAINT AS A PROHIBITED PLEADING UNDERTHE RULING IN THE FRANCISCO CASE WHEN IT IS CLEAR THATUNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE VARIOUS APPLICABLERULES OF PROCEDURE, THE ONE-YEAR CONSTITUTIONAL BARDOES NOT APPLY.

IV.

PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OFMANDAMUS, CONSIDERING THAT BOTH THE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY AND THE COMMITTEE ONJUSTICE REFUSED TO PERFORM A POSITIVE DUTY THECONSTITUTION DEMANDS OF THEM IN THE CONDUCT OF ANIMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.


23/57

23

F. DISCUSSION

I. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY COMMITTED

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESSOF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RATIFIED BY A VOTE OF 158-51, THEDECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE BY MAJORITY VOTE,

AND AS EMBODIED IN COMMITTEE REPORT 1012,46 TO DISCUSSPREJUDICIAL AND THRESHOLD QUESTIONS AHEAD OF ADETERMINATION OF THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE THREEIMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTS, IN VIOLATION OF THECONSTITUTION AND ITS OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE.

60. It should be stressed that neither the Constitution nor the RULES OF

PROCEDURE allows deliberations on prejudicial questions in an

impeachment proceeding. In fact, the rules only provide a two-stage process

of deliberation on the sufficiency of any impeachment complaint: the first

being sufficiency as to form, and the second being sufficiency as to substance.

These are the only threshold matters to be deliberated upon by the Committee

on Justice on the sufficiency of an impeachment complaint, nothing more,

nothing less.47

61. By interjecting deliberations on prejudicial questions prior to a

determination of form and substance, the majority in the Committee on

Justice amended theRULES OF PROCEDURE. TheRULES OF PROCEDURE

was approved by the plenary; these rules cannot be amended by the sheer

action of the majority in the Committee on Justice. Consequently, the

Committee on Justice exceeded its authority and violated the Constitution, for

more than amending the RULES OF PROCEDURE, by majority vote, the

Committee on Justice amended the Constitution itself when it provided for a

46 COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, at 13-22.

47See RULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE III 4.


24/57

24

deliberation on prejudicial questions ahead of a determination of form and

substance of the complaints.48

62. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, so said a path-breaking ruling

that established the historic basis of the power of judicial review, that the

constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or that the legislature

may alter the constitution by an ordinary act49

63. It went on thus:

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. Theconstitution is either a superior paramount law,unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with

ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterablewhen the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislativeact contrary to the constitution is not law; if the latter part betrue, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the

48 Under the HOUSE RULES,

Standing and special committees may adopt their own rules by a majorityvote of all their members, Provided, That these are consistent with theserules and will not expand or in any way alter their jurisdictions asprovided herein. See HOUSE RULES, Chap. IX, 34.

The HOUSE RULES moreover provides that,

Any provision of these Rules, except those that are also embodied in theConstitution, may be amended by a majority vote of all the Members ofthe House. See HOUSE RULES, Chap. XXV, 150.

It is clear that granting that the Committee on Justice may amend the RULES OF PROCEDURE,

it may not amend such rules where to do so would go against the provisions of the Constitutionsetting the parameters within which it may deliberate in the case of a pending impeachment

proceeding.

49Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1903), as excerpted in MENDOZA, supra note 8, at 11.


25/57

25

part of the people, to limit a power in its natureillimitable50

64. Moreover, prejudicial questions are plainly improper in impeachment

proceedings before the Committee on Justice that, under the RULES OF

PROCEDURE, only have jurisdiction, at that juncture, to tackle questions of

form and substance.

65. Allowing the discussion of prejudicial questions is a legal anomaly and can

only stem from a gross misunderstanding of criminal procedure as applied in

an impeachment proceeding.

66. In fact, any sophomore law student worth her salt knows what a prejudicial

question is all about. An eminent scholar of legal procedure, Prof. Antonio

Bautista, correctly describes the existence of prejudicial question as a

situation when,

The same or similar issue, factual, or legal or mixed, may beraised in a pending civil litigation and in a pending criminalprosecution. Each court which has jurisdiction over the civil

case and/or the criminal action is competent to adjudicatethis issue.51

67. The REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE [hereinafter,RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] have outlined the elements of this doctrine of

prejudicial question in this wise:

50Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1903), as excerpted in MENDOZA, supra note 8, at 11.

51Antonio R. Bautista,Precedence and Pre-Emption in Adjudication: The Doctrine of PrejudicialQuestion,78 PHIL.L. J. 1 (2003).


26/57

26

Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. Apetition for suspension of the criminal action based upon thependency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may befiled in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting

the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action hasbeen filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall befiled in the same criminal action any time before theprosecution rests.

Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of aprejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civilaction involves an issue similar or intimately related to theissue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) theresolution of such issue determines whether or not thecriminal action may proceed..52

68. The most cursory reading of these sections of the RULES OF COURTwill

show that no such prejudicial question exists in the impeachment

proceeding against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines.

69. The majority in the Committee on Justice has conveniently forgotten that this

is an impeachment proceeding. As such, it is sui generis. 53

70. It must be said that suspiciously, the prejudicial questions raised by Rep.

Lagman, along with the other arguments raised in COMMITTEE REPORT

1012 against the AMENDED COMPLAINT, all sound strikingly similar to

52RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 111, 6 and 7.

53See the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Reynato Puno in theFrancisco case, wherehe says:

I therefore respectfully submit that there is now a commixture ofpolitical and judicial components in our reengineered concept ofimpeachment. It is for this reason and more that impeachmentproceedings are classified as sui generis. To be sure, our impeachmentproceedings are indigenous, a kind of its own. They have been shaped byour distinct political experience especially in the last fifty years See G.R.No. 160206, November 10, 2003.


27/57

27

those found in the ANSWER and the MOTION TO STRIKE filed by the

Presidents lawyer, Pedro M. Ferrer. In the first place, as raised in the

deliberations of the Committee on Justice by many of the endorsers and/or

complainants, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has no legal standing yet to appear

before the Committee on Justice. The pertinent provision of the RULES OF

PROCEDUREadopted by the House of Representatives of the 13th Congress

provides thus:

Section 5. Notice to Respondent and Time to Plead.If the committee finds the complaint sufficient in form andsubstance, it shall immediately furnish the respondent witha copy of the resolution and/or verified complaint, as thecase may be, with written notice that he shall answer thecomplaint within ten (10) days from receipt of notice thereofand serve a copy of the answer to the complainant orcomplainants. No motion to dismiss shall be allowed withinthe period to answer the complaint.54

71. Indeed, both the Constitution and theRULES OF PROCEDUREprohibit the

filing of any pleading by the Respondent until after the Committee on Justice

has made a determination on the sufficiency of any impeachment complaint

with respect to form and substance.55 At this point in the impeachment

process, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has no personality to appear by counsel.

She as yet has no locus standi. Both theAnswer and theMotion to Strike are

functus oficio, mere scraps of paper.

72. At any rate, a prejudicial question goes into the heart of substance. Under the

54 RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule III 5.[italics supplied] Just like the procedure in preliminaryinvestigation in ordinary criminal cases, the Committee on Justice, which acts as the investigatingprosecutor, shall determine on its own whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance.If it is determined to be sufficient, then the respondent must file his answer, not a motion todismiss.

55See RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule III 4 and 5.


28/57

28

RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and jurisprudence, a prejudicial

question is no mere procedural matter but deals with a substantive issue

determinative of the guilt of an accused in a criminal proceeding.56 In fact, it

can well be said that a prejudicial question deals with the issue of jurisdiction,

one that, under theRULES OF PROCEDURE, is clearly a matter of substance.

As the pertinent provision ofthe RULES OF PROCEDURE puts it:

Should the committee find the complaint sufficient in form,it shall then determine if the complaint is sufficient insubstance. The requirement of substance is met if there is arecital of facts constituting the offense charged anddeterminative of the jurisdiction of the committee. If thecommittee finds that the complaint is not sufficient insubstance, it shall dismiss the complaint and shall submit itsreport as provided hereunder.57

73. Therefore, the House of Representatives in plenary committed a grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ratified by a

vote of 158-51 the decision of the Committee on Justice, as recorded in

COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, to discuss prejudicial and threshold questions

56As the existence of a civil case is often held as a defense in a criminal proceeding involving thesame issue, or at the very least, as something determinative of whether or not the criminal actionmay proceed.See the discussion in Bautista, supra note 51, at 10.

The scholar of procedural law himself proposes to do away with the doctrine altogether. In hisstudy of the doctrine, he made the following conclusion:

The doctrine of prejudicial question serves no useful purpose. Thespecter of confusing rulings on the same issues is just that aspecter[T]he doctrine has conduced to much harm and unnecessarylitigation over elusive and conceptually befuddling issues of sameness,determinativeness and precedenceIt would be best to do awayaltogether with the doctrine of prejudicial question. Let the criminalcourt decide the issue regardless of whether the same or similar result iscontemporaneously litigated in a civil action. There is no good reason forthe criminal court, which may even be the same court, to defer to the civilcourt. Bautista, supra note 51, at 24-25.

If that is so, this Honorable Committee will have done well to simply disregard these supposedprejudicial and threshold issues raised by the Respondent, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and get on

with its duty to determine the sufficiency of form and substance of the three complaints nowbefore it.

57RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule III 4(b).


29/57

29

ahead of a determination of the form and substance of the three impeachment

complaints, in violation of the Constitution and theRULES OF PROCEDURE.

II. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY COMMITTEDGRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESSOF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RATIFIED BY A VOTE OF 158-51, THEDECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE BY MAJORITY VOTE,

AND AS EMBODIED IN COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, TO TREAT THEAMENDED COMPLAINT AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THEORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, CONSIDERING THAT THEDEFECTIVE ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT HAS ALREADY BEENSUPERSEDED BY THE AMENDED COMPLAINTWHILE THE LOPEZCOMPLAINT, IT BEING FRAUGHT WITH PROCEDURAL ANDSUBSTANTIVE INFIRMITIES, IS OF NO LEGAL EFFECT.

The ORIGINAL LOZANOCOMPLAINT is stricken with abasic jurisdictional defect it wasnot endorsed by a member of the

House of Representatives of the13th Congress at the time it was

filed.

74. A most basic consideration must not be glossed over: at the time the

ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINTwas filed, it did not have the endorsement

of a member of the present House of Representatives.

75. This is a jurisdictional defect that effectively deprives the House of

Representatives of any jurisdiction over the ORIGINAL LOZANO

COMPLAINT.

76. Art. XI 3(2) of the Constitution provides that:


30/57

30

A verified complaint may be filed by any Member of theHouse of Representatives or by any citizen upon aresolution of endorsement by any Member thereof,which shall be included in the Order of Business within tensession days, and referred to the proper Committee, after

hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shallsubmit its report to the House within sixty session days fromsuch referral. The resolution shall be calendared forconsideration by the House within ten session days fromreceipt thereof. [emphasis supplied].

77. In the case of the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, the endorsement

by Rep. Marcoleta only came into the scene TWO DAYS LATER. This is

a fatal law that effectively deprives the ORIGINAL LOZANO

COMPLAINTof any legal personality and effect.

78. The Constitution provides that the impeachment complaint may be

filed by a citizen upon a resolution of endorsement58 by any member

of the House of Representatives. The endorsement must come with the

filing of the complaint, otherwise the complaint becomes stricken with

a fatal jurisdictional defect. A reasonable construction of this

constitutional requirement cannot agree with a situation where the

endorsement came after the filing of the complaint. This is a provision

evidently placed there by the framers of the Constitution as yet another

check against frivolous impeachment complaints.

58 CONST. Art. XI 3(2).


31/57

31

In sheer bad faith, the Committeeon Justice, by a majority vote,insisted on the ORIGINAL

LOZANO COMPLAINT when itsmembers knew the complaint was

stricken with yet anotherjurisdictional defect: it was notproperly verified.

79. The Constitution, which has established the parameters for the conduct of

impeachment proceedings, requires a verification for any impeachment

complaint to be valid, as can be seen in the following pertinent provisions of

the Charter:

Averified complaint may be filed by any Member of theHouse of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolutionof endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be

included in the Order of Business within ten session days,and referred to the proper Committee within three sessiondays thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by amajority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report tothe House within sixty session days from such referral,together with the corresponding resolution. The resolutionshall be calendared for consideration by the House withinten session days from receipt thereof59

In case the verified complaint or resolution of

impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Membersof the House, the same shall constitute the Articles ofImpeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwithproceed60

80. TheRULES OF PROCEDUREadopted by the House of Representatives of the

13th

Congress unequivocally requires that an impeachment complaint be

verified:

59 CONST. art. XI, 3 (2) [emphasis supplied].

60 CONST. art. XI, 3(4) [emphasis supplied].


32/57

32

Section 2. Mode of Initiating Impeachment. -

Impeachment shall be initiated by the filing and subsequent

referral to the Committee on Justice of:

(a) averified complaint for impeachment filed by anyMember of the House of Representatives or;

(b) a verified complaint filed by any citizen upon aresolution of endorsement by any Member thereof; or

(c) a verified complaint or resolution of impeachmentfiled by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of theHouse.61

81. Moreover, theRULES OF PROCEDURE specifically outlined the form of the

verification in this wise:

The contents of the verification shall be as follows:

We, after being sworn in accordance with law, depose andstate. That we are the complainants in the above-entitledcomplaint/resolution of impeachment; that we have causedthe said complaint/resolution to be prepared and have readthe contents thereof; and that the allegations therein are trueof our own knowledge and belief on the basis of our readingand appreciation of documents and other records pertinent

thereto62

82. In the case of the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT and its supplements,

none of them has been properly verified at all.

61 RULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE II, 2. [emphasis supplied]. A verification, according to caselaw, is intended to assure that the allegations in the pleading have been prepared in good faith orare true and correct, not mere speculations See Robern Dev't. Corp. v. Quitain, 315 SCRA 150,159 (1999).

62 RULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE IV, 13.


33/57

33

83. Instead, each of these pleadings only carried what amounts to a JURAT

usually found at the end of an affidavit, which is subscribed and sworn to

before a Notary Public.63

84. To illustrate, the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT only bears the following

statement at the end of the document:

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27th day ofJune 2005, in Quezon City. I certify that I personallyexamined the affiant who understood and voluntarilyexecuted his affidavit64

85. Hence, it strains the credulity of ordinary citizens that despite this fatal

infirmity found in the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT and its

supplements, the Committee on Justice, through a majority vote, insisted that

the complaint is sufficient in form.

63 In contrast to the verification, a jurat "is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifiesthat the instrument was sworn to before him It is not a part of a pleading but merely evidencesthe fact that the affidavit was properly madeBuenaventura v. NBP Officials, G.R. No. 114829March 1, 1995, citing Theobald v. Chicago Ry. Co., 75 Ill. App. 208; Young v. Wooden, 265 SW 24,204 Ky. 694; and LORENZO M. TAADA & FRANCISCO A. RODRIGO, MODERN LEGALFORMS, VOL. I, 31 (6th ed., 1985). The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines the jurat in this

wise: It is an act in which an individual on a single occasion,

appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument ordocument;(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notarypublic through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to suchinstrument or document.

64 ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, at 5. All the supplemental complaints Lozano filed alsocarried thejurat, and not a verification. The records of the Committee on Justice will readily bearout this fact.


34/57

34

86. Yet it is not surprising that the Majority in the Committee on Justice

preferred the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT its defects and infirmities

are an assurance that the President will not be impeached and convicted. It is

crystal clear that it cannot even pass the test of form, precisely because it has

not been properly verified.

87. Hence, COMMITTEE REPORT 1012 could say with some air of nonchalance

and without any legal basis at all, that since Lozano is a member of the

Philippine Bar, his signature as a lawyer suffices [sic] a verification because

he was the one who prepared the complaint in his own behalf, not for his

client65 Certainly, a JURAT could not be considered substantial compliance

to the requirement that the complaint be verified.

88. Accordingly, it was in sheer bad faith that the Committee on Justice insisted

that it first tackle legally and constitutionally impermissible prejudicial

questions in order to dismiss theAMENDED COMPLAINT.

89. This strategy concocted by the tyranny of numbers in the Committee on

Justice for the eventual rejection of the AMENDED COMPLAINTis clearly

seen in its decision to first consider purportedly prejudicial questions ahead

of a constitutional determination of the form and substance of the complaints.

65COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, at 23.


35/57

35

90. Consequently, with the AMENDED COMPLAINTlater dismissed, along with

theLOPEZ COMPLAINT, as a prohibited pleading, the Committee on Justice

then supposedly reviewed the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT and its

supplements, for a determination of substance, and thereafter dismissed it as

well.

91. Whether as a result of harried oversight or out of a desire to project some

measure of deliberative due process to the public, the Committee on Justice

actually passed upon matters of substance found in the AMENDED

COMPLAINT, and this, in the absence of any hearing at all where the

complainants were allowed to present evidence on these matters. 66

The LOPEZ COMPLAINT isfraught with even graverinfirmities flaws that render it,like the ORIGINAL LOZANOCOMPLAINT and its supplements,constitutionally and procedurallyinfirm.

92. The LOPEZ COMPLAINT fares worse than the ORIGINAL LOZANO

COMPLAINT. Lopez labeled his complaint a verified one, which is farthest

from the truth, as the records of the House of Representatives, and its

Committee on Justice, will bear out. Like the ORIGINAL LOZANO

66See COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, at 29-30.


36/57

36

COMPLAINT and its supplements, the LOPEZ COMPLAINTonly carried a

JURAT. 67

93. In fact, the LOPEZ COMPLAINT is stricken with other formal and

substantive defects. For one, some three weeks after it was filed, or on July

26, 2005, the complainant withdrew the LOPEZ COMPLAINT, citing poor

health as a reason.

94. Then, on August 3, 2005, the complainant filed a pleading of the same date

styled as a Rescission of Withdrawal with the House of Representatives,

saying that [a]fter due consideration, and after having been advised by well

meaning friends that my participation in the proceedings is an imperative

duty as a law-abiding citizen, I have decided to rescind my withdrawal.

95. Hence, we have aLOPEZ COMPLAINTriddled with the following infirmities

(a) the complainant did not properly verify it; (b) he subsequently withdrew it

on July 26, 2005, or a day after it was referred along with the two other

complaints to the Committee on Justice; (c) he changed his mind and on

August 3, 2005, he filed with the Committee on Justice a Rescission of

Withdrawal.

67 Thejuratin the LOPEZ COMPLAINTstates thus: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before methis 4 July 2005 in Quezon City. I hereby certify that I have personally examined theComplainant/Affiant who understood and voluntarily executed this Complaint/Affidavitat 11.For all intents and purposes, the LOPEZ COMPLAINTis a mere restatement of the ORIGINAL

LOZANO COMPLAINT.


37/57

37

96. Under the RULES OF PROCEDURE, a complaint found to be insufficient in

form shall be referred back to Secretary General, with a written explanation of

insufficiency. The Secretary General then returns it to the complainant along

with the committees explanation.68

97. Three reasons prevent the LOPEZ COMPLAINT from acquiring any legal

validity at all in the present impeachment proceeding.

98. In the first place, the complainant withdrew it.

99. In the second place, having withdrawn it, he cannot have the House of

Representatives re-institute it by the mere expediency of filing a Rescission

of Withdrawal for the reasons that (a) there is no such rescission under

either the Constitution or the RULES OF PROCEDURE, or even the 1997

REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE [Hereinafter, RULES OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE] orRULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] and (b) granting that

such a rescission is allowed, the re-institution will still be of no legal effect

because the LOPEZ COMPLAINT has not been properly verified. In other

words, he cannot re-institute a complaint that cannot at all have any legal

effect because of a formal and jurisdictional infirmity.

68 The pertinent provision states thus: - Upon due referral, the Committee on Justice shalldetermine whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance. If the committee findsthat the complaint is insufficient in form, it shall return the same to the Secretary General

within three (3) session days with a written explanation of the insufficiency. The SecretaryGeneral shall return the same to the complainant or complainants together with thecommittee's written explanation within three (3) session days from receipt of the committeeresolution finding the complaint insufficient in formRULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE III, 4.


38/57

38

100. In the third place, while the complainant may in fact reformulate his

complaint to comply with the verification requirement, he may no longer file

the reformulated complaint within the same year because it will be barred by

the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Francisco case considering the

existence of the Amended Complaint, which alone meets formal and

substantive requirements of the Constitution of the three impeachment

complaints, as will be shown in the succeeding sections of this pleading.

Under the Constitution, the issueof verification of an impeachmentcomplaint is jurisdictional. In theabsence of a proper verification inan impeachment complaint, theCommittee on Justice cannot takecognizance of it.

101. That the presence (or absence of) verification in an impeachment

complaint is a jurisdictional matter is clearly borne out in the language of the

Constitution. It speaks of a verified69 complaint.

102. The verification of an impeachment complaint is a formal requirement

that cannot be dispensed with. The Constitution specifically provided that an

impeachment complaint must be verified. Without a proper verification,

there can be no valid impeachment complaint. Without a proper verification,

the House of Representatives cannot assume jurisdiction over an

impeachment complaint. Under the Constitution, the RULES OF

6969 See CONST. art. XI, 3 (2) and (4).


39/57

39

PROCEDURE, the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDUREand jurisprudence, the

JURAT as used in the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT and the LOPEZ

COMPLAINT cannot be considered as substantial compliance with the

verification requirement.

103. The RULES of PROCEDURE,70 in keeping with the Constitutional

mandate, simply re-stated the verification requirement. For the integrity of

the impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives to be honored,

the verification requirement must be complied with. In the absence of this

jurisdictional fact, any impeachment complaint is a mere scrap of paper.

Under the Constitution, theRULES OF PROCEDURE, and theRULES OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE, the AMENDEDCOMPLAINT has alreadysuperseded the ORIGINAL LOZANCOMPLAINT and its supplements.

104. In the United States, the impeachment proceeding is likened to a grand

jury proceeding.71 In the Philippines however, the Constitution explicitly

provides that the House of Representatives has the sole power to initiate

impeachment complaints.72 Moreover, the RULES OF PROCEDUREprovide

that the House of Representatives, through the Committee on Justice,

70See RULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE II, 2 and RULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE IV, 13.

71 State v. Leese, 55 NW 798; 63 Am. Jur. 2d sec. 174.

72CONST. art XI, 3.


40/57

40

determines the existence of probable cause.73 As such it acts as the Office of

the Prosecutor.

105. The procedure for the determination of an impeachment complaints

sufficiency of form and substance is therefore akin to that of the Preliminary

Investigation and related matters74 undertaken by the Office of the

Prosecutor.

106. TheRULES OF PROCEDURE allows this:

The Rules of Criminal Procedure under the Rules of Court

shall, as far as practicable, apply to impeachment

proceedings before the House.75

107. It is noteworthy that the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, and not

those ofRULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, is invoked in the impeachment

proceeding in a suppletory manner.

108. With this in mind, it is easy to see why the argument about the need for a

leave of court before an amendment of the impeachment complaint can be

made is patently erroneous.

73RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule III 4- 8.

74See RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rules 110 to 127.

75RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule VII, 16.


41/57

41

109. Anyone vaguely familiar with the conduct of preliminary investigation

before the Office of the Prosecutor knows that complainants may amend,

alter, withdraw or substitute their complaint-affidavit at will prior to filing of

the information.

110. In fact, in criminal procedure, even after the filing of the information in

court, the Prosecutor may amend it in form or in substance without leave of

court, provided that the accused has yet to be arraigned. The pertinent

provision of theRULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE thus provides:

A complaint or information may be amended, in form or insubstance, without leave of court, at any time before theaccused enters his plea. After the plea and during trial, a

formal amendment may only be made with leave of courtand when it can be done without causing prejudice to therights of the accused76

111. For this reason, theAMENDED COMPLAINTsupersedes the ORIGINAL

LOZANO COMPLAINTand its supplements.

112. Do the changes made by the Amended Complaintprejudice the rights of

the Respondent, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo? This question is improper and

premature, for the determination of sufficiency in form of the AMENDED

COMPLAINT. The question goes into the substance of the AMENDED

COMPLAINT.

76 RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 110 14.


42/57

42

113. In any case, the amendments were introduced prior to the determination

of sufficiency of form and substance. Thus, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,

President of the Philippines, could not claim that she was prejudiced as she

can still file her ANSWER. Moreover, the inclusion of the additional offenses

in theAMENDED COMPLAINTdoes not increase the penalty against her.

The AMENDED COMPLAINT is theonly complaint that complies withthe formal and substantiveconstitutional requirements for avalid impeachment complaint.

114. In the instant case, the joint verification executed by the complainants in

theAMENDED COMPLAINT states:

1. We are Complainants in this case;

2. We have read the contents of this Complaint andaffirm that the allegations therein are true and correct to thebest of our own personal knowledge and/or based onauthentic records.

115. Notwithstanding the variance in the language used by complainants, their

joint verification clearly complies with theRULES OF PROCEDURE.

116. The joint verification executed by complainants, in fact, adheres to the

stricter requirement imposed by the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.77

77 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 7, 4.


43/57

43

Hence, it is based not only on complainants knowledge and belief but

specifically on their personal knowledge and/or on authentic records.

117. The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the

allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the

imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good

faith.78

118. Rules of procedure are used to help secure and not override substantial

justice. Since rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate the attainment

of justice, their strict and rigid application which would result in

technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice

must always be avoided.79

119. At any rate, no fault lies with the complainants in following the more

stringent requirements of the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE since the

House of the Representatives had yet to adopt its rules on impeachment at the

time their amended impeachment complaint was filed. At the very least, the

verification in theAMENDED COMPLAINT may well be taken as substantial

compliance with theRULES OF PROCEDURE.

78 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146923, 30 April 2003;Torres, et al. v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 149634, 6 July2004).

79 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146923, 30 April 2003.


44/57

44

120. Clearly, the House of Representatives in plenary committed grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ratified by a

vote of 158-51, the decision of the Committee on Justice by majority vote, and

as recorded in COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, to treat the AMENDED

COMPLAINT as separate and distinct from the ORIGINAL LOZANO

COMPLAINT, considering that the defective ORIGINAL LOZANO

COMPLAINThas already been superseded by the AMENDED COMPLAINT

while the LOPEZ COMPLAINT, it being fraught with procedural and

substantive infirmities, IS OF NO LEGAL EFFECT.

III. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY COMMITTED

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESSOF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RATIFIED BY A VOTE OF 158-51, THEDECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE BY MAJORITY VOTE,

AND AS EMBODIED IN COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, TO DISMISSTHEAMENDED COMPLAINT, LIKE THE LOPEZ COMPLAINT, AS APROHIBITED PLEADING UNDER THE RULING IN THE FRANCISCOCASEWHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, ANDTHE VARIOUS APPLICABLE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE ONE-

YEAR CONSTITUTIONAL BAR DOES NOT AT ALL APPLY.

90. Considering that the AMENDED COMPLAINThas already superseded

the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINTand theLOPEZ COMPLAINT, it

being of no legal effect because of procedural and substantive

infirmities, the Francisco case80 does not apply in the present

impeachment proceeding against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President ofthe Philippines.

80G.R. No. 160206, November 10, 2003.


45/57

45

91. As theRULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUREapplies in an impeachment

proceeding, the amendments made on the ORIGINAL LOZANO

COMPLAINT have a retroactive effect, such that the resulting

AMENDED COMPLAINT is deemed filed on the same date as the

superseded ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT.

92. For this reason, the LOPEZ COMPLAINT, it having been filed

subsequent to the ORIGINAL LOPEZ COMPLAINT, is barred under the

Francisco case.

93. In the alternative, assuming that the AMENDED COMPLAINT is

treated as separate from the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, since

all three complaints were referred to the Committee on Justice at the

same time anyway, the bar in theFrancisco case81 does not apply.

94. In theFrancisco case, this Honorable Court, in interpreting Art. XI, 5

of the Constitution, held that an impeachment proceeding is deemed

initiated upon the filing of an impeachment complaint and its referral to

the Committee on Justice. This Honorable Court thus ruled,

Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the actof filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachmentcomplaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the

81G.R. No. 160206, November 10, 2003.


46/57

46

filing by at least one-third of the members of the House ofRepresentatives with the Secretary General of the House, themeaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Oncean impeachment complaint has been initiated, anotherimpeachment complaint may not be filed against the same

official within a one year period82

95. All three complaints concerned, though filed on different dates, were

referred by the House of Representatives in plenary to the Committee on

Justice on the same day on July 26, 2005, and were received by the same

Committee on Justice at about the same time.83

96. For this reason, Petitioners also argue that in this instant case, there

really is only one impeachment proceeding to speak of, with three

impeachment complaints directed at the same impeachable officer,

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines.

97. The impeachment proceeding is too important to be allowed to

degenerate into a contest of who files first; Yet, the Committee on

Justices constitutionally contemptible acts have precisely that effect; it

has conflated proceeding with complaint so that the constitutionally

sacrosanct procedure to remove from public office perfidious

impeachable officials of the land becomes open season to the

unscrupulous, of whom this country unfortunately does not seem to

82 G.R. No. 160206, November 10, 2003.

83SeeANNEX G-2, a copy of the Order of Business of the House of Representatives in plenary, forJuly 25, 2005, under the sectionReference of Business, through which the three complaints weresimultaneously referred to the Committee on Justice.


47/57

47

lack. In fact, according to former Social Welfare Secretary Dinky

Soliman, this is what happened here: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,

President of the Philippines, had a direct hand in the filing of a friendly

impeachment complaint the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT

ahead of the others, to ensure that she is not impeached. A copy of her

affidavit on this matter is attached to this Petition asANNEX N.

98. But this is how constitutional law scholar, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., sees

things:

[W]e next look at what the Constitution prohibits. Itprohibits the initiation of more than one "impeachmentproceeding." It does not necessarily prohibit more than onecomplaint. More than one complaint would be prohibitedonly if the multiple complaints would require more than"one proceeding." But if they can be logically andconveniently combined into one proceeding, there would beno violation of the Constitution.

In the current controversy, the so-called "amendedcomplaint" and the Lopez complaint, both transmitted onthe same day to the Justice Committee together with theLozano complaint, are nothing more than "bills ofparticulars" to accompany the Lozano complaint. They bothelaborate on the one constitutional offense of "betrayal ofpublic trust." For constitutional purposes, therefore, what isbeing initiated is only "one proceeding involving onecomplaint but with an extended bill of particulars...84

IV. PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OFMANDAMUS, CONSIDERING THAT BOTH THE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY AND THE COMMITTEE ONJUSTICE REFUSED TO PERFORM A POSITIVE DUTY THECONSTITUTION DEMANDS OF THEM IN THE CONDUCT OF ANIMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

99. Under Rule 65, when any tribunal, corporation or board, officer or

person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law

84Fr. Joaquin Bernas,Betrayal of Public Trust, Inquirer News Service, August 21, 2005, availableat http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=47628&col=136 .
http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=47628&col=136http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=47628&col=136


48/57

48

specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or

unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or

office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy

and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved

thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts

with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the

respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the

court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the

petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason

of the wrongful acts of the Respondent.

100. As discussed above, there is no preliminary stage to determine the

existence of prejudicial questions or issues in the impeachmentproceedings as outlined in the Constitution and the RULES OF

PROCEDURE.

101. Upon referral to it by the House of Representatives sitting in plenary,

the Committee is duty-bound to conduct hearings to determine the

sufficiency of form and substance of the complaints referred to it in

an impeachment proceeding. Indeed, there is no half-way stage between

such referral and the determination of sufficiency of form and substance.

102. In the instant petition, Petitioners are prejudiced by the unconstitutional

act committed by the House of Representatives in plenary when it


49/57

49

ratified by a vote of 158-51 the constitutionally contemptible decision of

the Committee on Justice (a) to amend by a majority vote the

constitutional provisions outlining the duty of the same Committee in an

impeachment proceeding, that is, to determine the sufficiency of form

and of substance of an impeachment complaint; in this case, the

Committee on Justice added a preliminary stage by deliberating on so-

called prejudicial questions ahead of the constitutionally prescribed

duty of the Committee to determine the sufficiency of form and

substance of the complaint;(b) to treat the AMENDED COMPLAINTas

separate and distinct from the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, and

(c) to dismiss the AMENDED COMPLAINTas being constitutive of an

impeachment proceeding barred under the Francisco case when, of the

three complaints, it was the only one that met the constitutional

requirements of sufficiency of form and substance, besides the fact that

all three complaints, in the very first place, were referred by the House of

Representatives in plenary to the Committee on Justice and therefore

constitute a single impeachment proceeding.

103. The Petitioners have a real interest in how the House of Representatives

in plenary and the Committee on Justice carried out their

constitutionally-mandated duty to determine the sufficiency in form and

in substance of the AMENDED COMPLAINT brought against Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines.


50/57

50

104. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the exclusive power to initiate

impeachment cases lodged by the Constitution before the House of

Representatives refers to that legally mandated ability of the House of

Representatives alone to accept, act on, investigate and decide on any

and all complaints for impeachment that comply with the requirements

set by the Constitution.

105. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the grant of that power to the

House of Representatives is not a grant of an unbounded and absolute

discretion to exercise that legally mandated ability. Such power, such

ability, is, as it has always been, coupled with the bounden duty to

exercise the same pursuant to the purposes such power has been

designed to address and within the limits set under the Constitution.

106. As such, that exclusive power carries with it or includes the positive duty

to accept, act on, investigate and decide preliminarily the merits of the

charges in any complaint or complaints that may be filed before it, much

like the judicial power which includes the duty of the courts of justice to

settle actual controversies85

107. Indeed, the Petitioners right to file an impeachment complaint against

an impeachable official in one impeachment proceeding has been

85 CONS. Art. VIII, 1(2).


51/57

51

arbitrarily denied them when the Committee on Justice dismissed the

AMENDED COMPLAINT in a capricious, arbitrary, whimsical, and

unconstitutional manner and when the House of Representatives in

plenary, voting 158-51, ratified such a constitutionally contemptible act.

108. The denial of their right is a direct injury that must be immediately

redressed, if their constitutional right is to be protected and upheld.

109. In the case of the Petitioner, Rep. Martinez, the Supreme Court itself has

this to say,

To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is thepower of each member thereof, since his office confers a

right to participate in the exercise of the powers of thatinstitution.86

110. For what the Committee on Justice did was to resort to the most absurd

of technicalities to dismiss theAMENDED COMPLAINTbut was liberal

in its acceptance of the ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT as being

sufficient in form. What resulted was a most farcical exercise worthy of

the theatre of the absurd, except that the most cruel joke was inflicted

on a public hungry for the truth about the serious allegations being

raised in the impeachment proceeding against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,

President of the Philippines.

86Del Mar v. PAGCOR, G.R. No.138298, November 29, 2000.


52/57

52

111. What the Constitution demands is a liberal approach to the

impeachment proceeding one that would work for the interest of

justice, truth and fairness. As Constitutional Commissioner Christian

Monsod stressed in a sponsorship speech in one of the 1986

Constitutional Commission deliberations:

MR. MONSOD. Madam President,

With respect to the section on impeachment, we would likethe honorable Commissioners to note the inclusion of theOmbudsman among the officers that are subject toimpeachment, and the addition of betrayal of public trust asaground for impeachment. This is derived from a resolutionof Commissioner de los Reyes. In the section on theprocedure for impeachment, we were benefited by thesuggestions and advice of the honorable President of theCommission. The principal author of this section isCommissioner Romulo. What we seek to institute hereis a more liberal interpretation of the impeachment

procedures in order to avoid, for example, the deadlockwhich happened in the last Batasan. While incorporating theprocedures arising from the bicameral nature of the futurelegislation, the body will note that we provided here that amajority of the Members of the House can initiateimpeachment upon vote. But what is important is thatany Member of the House or any citizen can file a

verified complaint. We used the majority rule of theHouse, although in 1973 the provision was for 20 percent ofthe Members of the National Assembly. In that case since itwas unicameral, the trying body was also the National

Assembly.

In the 1935 Constitution, the rule was two-thirds of theHouse may initiate impeachment proceedings and three-fourths of the Senate shall convict. However, in our proposal,majority of the Members of the House may initiate and two-thirds of the Senate shall convict. This is one section onwhich we would like to consult with the Members of thisbody. This is a very important provision, and we would beadvised by the consultations and wisdom of this body with

respect to this provision, particularly on the numbers andvote necessary to initiate, to try or to convict...87

87II RECORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, 265 (1986).


53/57

53

112. Clearly, this is a matter of national interest, involving a transcendental

issue; as the people of the Republic have an unmistakable constitutional

right to demand of their representatives in public office, especially of the

President, to conduct themselves according to the democratic idea that a

public office is a public trust, so do they have an unmistakable interest in

the faithful performance by their elected representatives in Congress of

their duty to investigate an impeachable officer in an impeachment

proceeding according to well-defined constitutional parameters.

113. The Petitioners are therefore, entitled to a writ of mandamus directing

the Respondent House of Representatives to remand the AMENDED

COMPLAINT to the Committee on Justice so that the Committee on

Justice, in turn, may proceed forthwith to a constitutional determination

of its sufficiency of form and substance.

G. CONCLUDING STATEMENT

114. Clearly, the

certiorari ibohhmpeachment

Documents