Case Summary (G.R. No. 193459)
Petitioner’s Allegations
Two impeachment complaints were filed against the Ombudsman, each alleging:
• Betrayal of public trust (failure to prosecute or investigate high-profile cases promptly).
• Culpable violation of the Constitution (delay in files, denial of timely disposition).
Key Dates
• July 22, 2010 – First Complaint filed and later endorsed by two party-list Representatives.
• August 3, 2010 – Second Complaint filed and endorsed by seven Representatives.
• August 11, 2010 – Both complaints referred by the plenary to the Justice Committee.
• September 1, 2010 – Justice Committee finds both complaints sufficient in form.
• September 7, 2010 – Justice Committee finds both complaints sufficient in substance and orders petitioner to file an answer within ten days.
• September 13, 2010 – Petitioner files petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for injunctive relief.
• September 14, 2010 – Supreme Court issues Status Quo Ante Order suspending further action on both complaints.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article XI (Impeachment):
– Sec. 3(1): House has exclusive power to initiate all impeachment cases.
– Sec. 3(2): Complaint must be included in Order of Business within ten session days, referred to committee within three session days.
– Sec. 3(3): One-third vote of House required to affirm or override Committee resolution.
– Sec. 3(4): Direct filing by one-third of House members constitutes Articles of Impeachment and triggers Senate trial.
– Sec. 3(5): No impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within one year.
– Sec. 3(6): Senate has sole power to try and decide impeachment cases.
• House Rules (15th Congress): Committee proceedings; procedural deadlines.
• Francisco v. House of Representatives (460 Phil. 830, 2003): Impeachment is “initiated” by filing and referral of a verified complaint unless directly filed by one-third of members.
Procedural History Before the Committee
- Referral: The plenary referred the First Complaint and, shortly thereafter, the Second Complaint to the Justice Committee on the same day.
- Sufficiency in Form: September 1, 2010 hearing—Committee finds both complaints sufficient in form.
- Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner’s motion (challenging one-year limit) refused as premature.
- Sufficiency in Substance: September 7, 2010 hearing—Committee finds both complaints sufficient in substance; summons served.
- Answer Due: Petitioner directed to file answer within ten days but instead petitions this Court.
Issue Presented
Whether referral of two separate impeachment complaints against the same official within one year violated the constitutional prohibition (Art. XI, Sec. 3[5]) against initiating more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official in a one-year period.
One-Year Bar Rule and Its Purpose
• Purpose: Prevent repeated harassment of impeachable officers and allow Congress to focus on legislation.
• Francisco’s Definition of “Initiated”: Filing of a verified complaint coupled with its referral to the committee.
• Consequence: Once one complaint is filed and referred, a second complaint against the same official is barred for one year.
Analysis on Time-Bar Violation
- Sequential Referral: Although referred on the same date, the records show the First Complaint was read and referred before the Second Complaint.
- Bar Triggers on First Referral: Under Franc
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 193459)
Facts
- Petitioner Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez is the Ombudsman, appointed in December 2005, tasked with investigating and prosecuting certain public officials.
- On July 22, 2010, citizens Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Danilo D. Lim, Felipe PestaÅo and Evelyn PestaÅo filed the First Impeachment Complaint against Gutierrez, alleging:
• Dismal conviction rate from 2008 onward;
• Delay in resolving high-profile cases (e.g., Fertilizer Fund Scam, NBN-ZTE project);
• Specific incidents of alleged betrayal of public trust (e.g., death in the Philippine Navy, P1M dinner in New York);
• Culpable violation of speedy-disposition provisions in the Constitution;
• Refusal to grant access to public records (SALN). - On August 3, 2010, a second group—Renato M. Reyes, Mother Mary John Mananzan, Danilo Ramos, Edre Olalia, Ferdinand Gaite and James Terry Ridon—filed the Second Impeachment Complaint, similarly charging betrayal of public trust and constitutional violations.
- Each complaint was accompanied by endorsement resolutions from Party-List legislators, as required under Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.
Procedural History
- July 27, 2010: First Complaint transmitted to House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr.
- August 2 and 9, 2010: Speaker directs Committee on Rules to include First and Second Complaints in the Order of Business.
- August 11, 2010: House plenary refers both complaints to the Committee on Justice.
- September 1, 2010: Committee on Justice finds both complaints sufficient in form.
- September 6, 2010: Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is refused as premature.
- September 7, 2010: Committee finds both complaints sufficient in substance and serves petitioner notice to answer within 10 days.
- September 13, 2010: Petitioner files petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court.
- September 14, 2010: Court issues status quo ante order, suspending further proceedings.
Issues
- May the Supreme Court review the actions of a House Committee in impeachment proceedings?
- Were the Committee’s September 1 and 7, 2010 resolutions sufficient in form and substance unconstitutional?
- Did the House Committee on Justice violate petitioner’s due process rights?
- Must the House’s Rules of Impeachment be published before they become effective?
- When does the one-year bar on initiating impeachment proceedings against the same official commence?
- Does "initiation of impeachment proceedings" include multiple simultaneous or successive complaints?
- Can rules of criminal procedure, such as the single-offense rule, supplement impeachment rules to bar multiple charges per complaint?
- Is consolidation of complaints permissible?
Scope of Judicial Review
- The Supreme Court’s expanded certiorari jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution empowers it to correct grave abuses of discretion by any branch of government.
- While impeachment is political and vested in Congress, the Court may inquire whether constitutional limits (e.g., time bars, due process) have been transgressed.
- Precedents (e.g., Santiago v. Guingona, TaÅada v. Angara) confirm the Court’s duty to uphold constitutional constraints on Congress.
Due Process of Law
- Petitioner alleged bias and inadequate procedure during the Committee’s hearings.
- Chairman Tupas was accused of personal bias; Committee members noted no vote was cast by him, and due process allows presumption of regularity unless proven otherwise.
- Five-minute objections and motion-filing procedures comport with due process; petitioner’s counsel conceded that participation begins after sufficiency rulings.
- No evidence of arbitrary or prejudicial haste; legal precedents hold speed alone is not proof of bias.
Publication of Impeachment Rules
- Article XI, Section 3(8) of the Constitution directs Congress to "promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section."
- "Promulgate" commonly means "publish," as required for statutes and administrative rules to take effect.
- The Committee’s Rules were published on September 2, 2010 but took effect only after 15 days, yet Committee acted on sufficiency of form and substance before rules were effective.
- Comparative law (TaÅada v. Tuvera, Neri v. Senate) emphasizes publication to inform parties and protect rights (e.g., witnesses).
- The Court rejects the House’s claim that provisional adoption of prior-Congress Rules and delayed publication cured defects.
- Conclusion: unpublished Rules when Committee acted violated due process, invalidating actions taken prior to effective publication.
The One-Year Bar Rule
- Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(5): "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year."
- Francisco v. House of Representatives defined "initiation" as the filing of the complaint and its referral to the Committee on Justice.
- Once a first complaint is filed and referred, a second complaint against the same official within 1 year is barred.
- Simultaneous referral of two complaints against the petitioner would violate the one-year bar if each referral is treated as initiation.
- Concurrent referrals or multiple match-sticks lighting one candle analogy invalid; only one proceeding per year may be initiated.
- Permissible discretion in plenary to refuse a referral of subsequent complaint if one-year bar not elapsed.
- Petitioner’s second complaint is unconstitutional; only the first complaint may proceed.
Initiative of Impeachment Proceedings
- "Initiate impeachment proceedings" comprises:
• Filing of a verified impeachment complaint; and
• Referral of the complaint by the Speaker to the proper committee. - Additional steps (sufficiency hearings, Committee reports, plenary votes) follow initiation but do not trigger the one-year bar.
- The House in plenary possesses a 10-session-day and 3-session-day window to include and refer complaints, ensuring orderly progression.
- Initiation is not the same as "Articles of Impeachment vote," which requires one-third plenary vote.
Applicability of Criminal Procedure Rules
- House Rules provide that Rules of Criminal Procedure apply "as far as practicable."
- Section 13, Rule 110 (no duplicity of offense) is inapplicable; Articles of Impeachment may contain multiple grounds (each Article a single ground).
- Impeachment is a political process separate from criminal prosecution; more flexible pleading is allowed.
Consolidation of Complaints
- Consolidation of the First and Second Complaints was only mooted and never ordered.
- No basis for Court to rule on consolidation; matter left to Committee discretion and subject to future challenge if ordered.
Final Ruling
- Actions of the House Committee on Justice on September 1 and 7, 2010, taken before the Rules of Impeachment became effective, are invalid for lack of publication and for violating the one-year bar rule.
- The Second Complaint against the same official within one year is barred; only the First Complaint may proceed.
- The status quo ant