Certiorari and prohibition impeachment Date of Promulgation: February 15, 2011 Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J.

QuickGuide: Petitioner-Ombudsman challenges House Resolutions of Sept. 1 and 7, 2010 finding two impeachment complaints against the petitioner, simultaneously referred to the House Committee on Justice, sufficient in form and substance on grounds that she was denied due process and that the said resolutions violated the one-year bar rule on initiating impeachment proceedings for impeachable officers. Court dismissed the petition. Facts: 22July2010: 4 days before the 15th Congress opened its first session, private respondents Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Danilo Lim and spouses Pestao (Baraquel group) filed an impeachment complaint against Gutierrez upon endorsement of Party-List Representatives Walden Bello and Arlene Bag-ao 27July2010: 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, Casio, 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

Issue/s: Whether the case presents a justiciable controversy Whether the belated publication of the Rules of Procedure of Impeachment Proceedings of the 15th Congress denied due process to the Petitioner Whether the simultaneous referral of the two complaints violated the Constitution Ruling: Petition DISMISSED. Ratio: 1. NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION - Francisco Jr. vs HOR: Judicial review is not only a power but a duty of the judiciary - the 1987 Constitution, though vesting in the House of Representatives the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases, provides for several limitations to the exercise of such power as embodied in Section 3(2), (3), (4) and (5), Article XI thereof. These limitations include the manner of filing, required vote to impeach, and the one year bar on the impeachment of one and the same official.

-the Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. Instead, it provided for certain well-defined limits, or in the language of Baker v. Carr, judicially discoverable standards for determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review 2. 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 HCOJs, Rep. Tupas, father has a pending case with her at the Sandiganbayan Presumption of regularity

opening on July 26, 2010 of the 15th Congress. She posits that within one year from July 22, 2010, no second impeachment complaint may be accepted and referred to public respondent. INITIATIVE: Filing of impeachment complaint coupled with Congress taking initial action of said complaint (referral of the complaint to the Committee on Justice) IMPEACH: to file the case before the Senate

Rationale of the one-year bar: that the purpose of the one-year bar is two-fold: 1)to prevent undue or too frequent harassment; and 2) to allow the legislature to do its principal task [of] legislation, that there should only be ONE CANDLE that is kindled in a year, such that once the candle starts burning, subsequent matchsticks can no longer rekindle the candle. (Gutierrez vs. HOR, 2011)

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

3.

THE ONE-YEAR BAR RULE

(P): start of the one-year bar from the filing of the first impeachment complaint against her on July 22, 2010 or four days before the