Case Digest (G.R. No. 187714)
Facts:
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Manuel B. Villar, Joker P. Arroyo, Francis N. Pangilinan, Pia S. Cayetano, and Alan Peter S. Cayetano v. Senate Committee of the Whole represented by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. 187714, March 08, 2011, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners — Senators Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Manuel B. Villar, Joker P. Arroyo, Francis N. Pangilinan, Pia S. Cayetano, and Alan Peter S. Cayetano — sought a writ of prohibition (with prayer for preliminary injunction/TRO) to restrain the Senate Committee of the Whole (respondent) from proceeding with hearings on a complaint filed by Senator Maria Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal (Senator Madrigal) under P.S. Resolution No. 706 alleging a double insertion of P200 million appropriations benefiting Senator Villar’s properties in the 2008 General Appropriations Act.
The factual background began with Senator Panfilo Lacson’s 15 September 2008 privilege speech accusing a double insertion in the 2008 GAA and tracing it to Senator Villar. On 8 October 2008 Senator Madrigal filed P.S. Resolution 706 directing the Committee on Ethics and Privileges to investigate Senator Villar for alleged conflict of interest and other misconduct; the resolution was referred to the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee was initially constituted under its published Rules (published in the Official Gazette, 23 March 2009), but after leadership changes in November 2008 and continuing refusals by the Senate Minority to nominate members to the Ethics Committee, Senator Lacson moved — and the Senate approved — that the matter be taken up by the Senate acting as a Committee of the Whole.
The Senate Committee of the Whole conducted preliminary hearings in May 2009. Petitioners objected to (a) the transfer of the complaint from the Ethics Committee to the Committee of the Whole; (b) the Committee of the Whole’s adoption of the Ethics Committee Rules (including disputed quorum provisions); and (c) the Committee’s failure to publish its rules despite an express provision in those Rules making effectivity contingent on publication. Petitioners invoked equal protection, due process, and the constitutional majority-quorum requirement under Article VI, Section 16(2). The Senate defended the transfer and procedures, raised separation-of-powers and primary-jurisdiction objections, and contended there was no grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioners filed the present petition under Rule 65...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is Senator Madrigal an indispensable party to this petition?
- Is the petition premature for failure to observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort?
- Did the transfer of the complaint from the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the Whole violate Senator Villar’s right to equal protection?
- Did the adoption of the Ethics Committee Rules by the Senate Committee of the Whole violate Senator Villar’s right to due process and the majority-quorum requirement of Article VI, Section 16(2) of the Constitution?
- Must the Rules of the Senate Comm...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)