GUTIERREZ vs. HR COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE (Political Law Review)

G.R. No. 193459               March 8, 2011

MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ Petitioner,
vs.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, RISA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, DANILO D. LIM, FELIPE PESTAÑO, EVELYN PESTAÑO, RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN); MOTHER MARY JOHN MANANZAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON OF PAGBABAGO; DANILO RAMOS, SECRETARY-GENERAL OF KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP); ATTY. EDRE OLALIA, ACTING SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLE'S LAWYERS (NUPL); FERDINAND R. GAITE, CHAIRPERSON, CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE); and JAMES TERRY RIDON OF THE LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS), Respondents.
FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., Respondent-Intervenor.

FACTS:

22July2010: private respondents Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Danilo Lim and spouses Pestaño (Baraquel group) filed an impeachment complaint against Gutierrez upon endorsement of Party-List Representatives Walden Bello and Arlene Bag-ao

July2010: HOR Sec-Gen transmitted the complaint to House Speaker Belmonte who then, on August 2, directed the Committee on Rules to include it in the Order of Business

3Aug2010: private respondents Renato Reyes Jr., Mother Mary John Mananzan, Danilo Ramos, Edre Olalia, Ferdinand Gaite and James Terry Ridon (Reyes group) filed an impeachment complaint againsta herein petitioner endorsed by Representatives Colmenares, Casiño, Mariano, Ilagan, Tinio and De Jesus

HOR provisionally adopted the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Proceedings of the 14th Congress and HOR Sec-Gen transmitted the complaint to House Speaker Belmonte who then, on August 9, directed the Committee on Rules to include it in the Order of Business

11Aug2010: HOR simultaneously referred the two complaints to the House Committee on Justice (HCOJ for brevity)

After hearing, HCOJ by Resolution of September 1, 2010, found both complaints sufficient in form

2Sept2010: The Rules of Procedure of Impeachment Proceedings of the 15th Congress was published

After hearing, HCOJ by Resolution of September 7, 2010 found the two complaints, which both allege culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, sufficient in substance.

Petitioner filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition challenging Resolutions of September 1 and 7 alleging that she was denied due process and that these violated the one-year bar rule on initiating impeachment proceedings

ISSUES:

Whether the simultaneous referral of the two complaints violated the Constitution

RULING:

DUE PROCESS: Is there a need to publish as a mode of promulgation the Rules of Procedure of Impeachment Proceedings?

–          (P) alleges that the finding of sufficiency in form and substance of the impeachment complaints is tainted with bias as the Chairman of the HCOJ’s, Rep. Tupas, father has a pending case with her at the Sandiganbayan

–          Presumption of regularity

–          The determination of sufficiency of form and exponent of the express grant of rule-making power in the HOR

–          the Impeachment Rules are clear in echoing the constitutional requirements and providing that there must be a “verified complaint or resolution”, and that the substance requirement is met if there is “a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee”

–          The Constitution itself did not provide for a specific method of promulgating the Rules.

–          impeachment is primarily for the protection of the people as a body politic, and not for the punishment of the offender.

To reiterate, when the Constitution uses the word "promulgate," it does not necessarily mean to publish in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. Promulgation, as used in Section 3(8), Article XI of the Constitution, suitably takes the meaning of "to make known" as it should be generally understood.

Petitioner continues to misapply Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations12 where the Court noted that the Constitution unmistakably requires the publication of rules of procedure pertaining to inquiries in aid of legislation. If the Constitution warranted the publication of Impeachment Rules, then it could have expediently indicated such requirement as it did in the case of legislative inquiries.

The Constitution clearly gives the House a wide discretion on how to effectively promulgate its Impeachment Rules. It is not for this Court to tell a co-equal branch of government on how to do so when such prerogative is lodged exclusively with it.

Still, petitioner argues that the Court erred when it ruled that "to require publication of the House Impeachment Rules would only delay the impeachment proceedings and cause the House of Representatives to violate constitutionally mandated periods…" She insists that the Committee, after publishing the Impeachment Rules, would still have a remainder of 45 days out of the 60-day period within which to finish its business.