CASE DIGEST: ROMULO V YNIGUEZ

Published by arce on August 3, 2013 | Leave a response

ROMULO v YNIGUEZ

FACTS

Petitioners representing more than 1/5 of all members of the Batasan, filed Resolution
No. 644, calling for the impeachment of President Marcos together with a verified
complaint by impeachment. Said resolution and complaint were referred by the Speaker
to the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government (CJHRGG). The
committee found the complaint not sufficient in form and substance to warrant its
further consideration and disapproved the Resolution and dismissed all the charges
contained in the complaint attached. It then submitted its report which was duly noted
by the Batasan and sent to the Archives. The next day, Mitra filed with the Batasan a
motion praying for the recall from the archives of RN 644 and the verified
complaint attached thereto. Said motion was disapproved by the Batasan. The present
petition was then filed with the Court praying that pertinent provisions of the Batasan
Rules granting power to the Batasan to determine whether an impeachment complaint
is sufficient and its power to approve of deny such complaint be declared
unconstitutional. They also pray that dismissal by the CJHRGG of RN 644 and the
impeachment complaint attached thereto be declared null and void. It is the
petitioner’s contention that said provisions of the Batasan Rules are unconstitutional
because they amend Sec. 3 of Art XIII of the 1973 Constitution, without complying with
the amendatory process provided in the Constitution. Further, the said provisions vest
with the CJHRGG the power to decide whether to impeach or not, which should be
decided by the Batasan as a collegiate body and not by a small body of the Batasan. They
also content that the Batasan Rules impose an unconstitutional and illegal condition
precedent in order that the complaint for impeachment can proceed to trial before the
Batasan. By requiring a majority vote of all the members of the Batasan for the approval
of the resolution setting forth the Articles of Impeachment, the Rules impose at least 1/5
of all the members of the Batasan for the initiation of impeachment proceedings.

ISSUEs

1. Does the Court have jurisdiction to order CJHRGG to recall from the Archives and
report out the resolution and complaint for impeachment?

2. Can the Court, assuming that the resolution and complaint for impeachment are
recalled from the Archives, order the Batasan to conduct a trial on the charges of the
complaint?

3. Are the assailed provisions unconstitutional?

HELD
No, to all three counts. When the Batasan denied the motion of Mitra for the recall from
the Archives of RN 644 and the complaint for impeachment, it, in effect, confirmed the
action of the CJHRGG dismissing said complaint and resolution. The Constitution
provides that no official shall be convicted without the concurrence of at least 2/3 votes
of its members. In this case, a majority vote of all the members of the Batasan
confirming the action of the CHRGG makes mathematically impossible the required
vote for conviction of at least 2/3 of all the members. It would serve no purpose to
proceed any further when it is obvious that the require 2/3 vote for conviction cannot be
obtained. Dismissal of the impeachment proceedings would then be in order. A
dismissal by the Batasan itself (as a body) of the resolution and complaint for
impeachment – as in the dismissal of Mitra’s motion in the case – makes irrelevant
under what authority the CJHRGG had acted. The dismissal by the majority of the
members of the Batasan of the impeachment proceedings is an act of the Batasan as a
body in the exercise of the powers vested upon it by the Constitution beyond the power
of the court to review. The court cannot compel the Batasan to conduct the
impeachment trial prayed for by the petitioners. To order the CJHRGG to recall from
the Archives the complaint and resolution would produce the effect of ordering the
Batasan to proceed with the impeachments proceedings. This, the court cannot do. The
assailed provisions are constitutional. The Batasan, pursuant to its powers to adopt
rules of its proceeding, may adopt necessary rules of procedure to govern impeachment
proceedings. The Batasan Rules of Procedure in impeachment cases providing for the
dismissal of an impeachment complaint which is not sufficient in form and substance,
or when sufficient grounds for impeachment do not exist, or probable cause has not
been established, or requiring majority vote of all members of the Batasan for the
approval of a resolution setting forth the Articles of Impeachment, are not inconsistent
with Sec. 3 of Art. XIII of the 1973 Consti. Injunction cannot lie to restrain
the enforcement of the particular provisions of the Rules (aside from the fact that the
question involved is a political one), because the acts of the committee sought to be
restrained had already been consummated. They are fait accompli.