July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 169561 : July 20, 2010] REP. CLAVEL A. MARTINEZ, ET AL. V. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 13TH CONGRESS, ET AL.
[G.R. NO. 169697]
ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. V. THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, ET AL.
[G.R. NO. 169751]
REP. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, ET AL., V. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 13TH CONGRESS, ET AL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 169561 : July 20, 2010]
REP. CLAVEL A. MARTINEZ, ET AL. V. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 13TH CONGRESS, ET AL.
[G.R. NO. 169697]
ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. V. THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, ET AL.
[G.R. NO. 169751]
REP. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, ET AL., V. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 13TH CONGRESS, ET AL.
R E S O L U T I O N
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated July 20, 2010, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 169561 (Rep. Clavel A. Martinez, et al. v. The House of Representatives of the 13th Congress, et al.).
G.R. No. 169697 (Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. v. The House Committee on Justice, et al.).
G.R. No. 169751 (Rep. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al., v. The House of Representatives of the 13th Congress, et al.)".
As a consequence of the "Hello Garci" controversy involving former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, on June 27, 2005 lawyer Oliver Lozano (Lozano) filed with the House of Representatives (House) an unverified Complaint for Impeachment[1] (the Lozano complaint), alleging the President's betrayal of public trust. On July 4, 2005, another lawyer, Jose P. Lopez, filed another unverified Complaint for Impeachment[2] (the Lopez complaint) involving the same subject matter.
On July 25, 2005, the first dya of the Second Session of the 13th Congress, 29 members and party-list representatives led by Representative Ana Theresa Hontiveros-Baraquiel of the Akbayan Party-List filed with the House a verified Amended Complaint against the President (the Baraquiel complaint) before the Office of the Secretary General of the House, involving the same subject matter plus some allegations of corruption.
On August 10, 2005, acting on Representative Edcel C. Lagman's motion, the Committee on Justice voted to declare the Lozano Complaint sufficient in form but insufficient in substance. Further, the Committee voted to treat the Baraquiel and Lopez complaints as separate and distinct from the Lozano complaint, and thus barred by the one-year bar rule and the ruling in Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives.[3] In plenary session on September 6, 2005, the House, voting 158-51 (with 6 abstentions), adopted House Resolution 933,[4] which approved the Justice Committee's recommendations and dismissed all the impeachment complaints against the President.
This prompted the petitioners in these cases to file separate petitions for certiorari and mandamus against the Hose and its Committee on Justice, seeking the nullification of House Resolution 933 and the issuance of an order directing the House, through the Committee on Justice, to take cognizance of the Baraquiel and Lopez complaints and proceed to the determination of their sufficiency or insufficiency in form and substance.
As it happened, however, the House of the 13th Congress adopted House Resolution 933 in 2005, which Congress ended its term in June 2007 before the Court could act on the petitions. Congress in not a continuing body with respect to the conduct of tis business.[5] It is clear from Section 78 of the Rules of the House of Representatives[6] that all unfinished business should be deemed terminated at the end of its term. Since each Congress acts separately and independently of the Congress before and after it, the subject impeachment complaints became functus officio and had to be re-filed anew in order to be taken up in the next Congress. There is no indication that this had been done.
What is more, the former President has ceased to be President as of June 30, 2010. The complaints for impeachment against her have, therefore, become moot.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petitions in these cases on ground of mootness."
"G.R. No. 169561 (Rep. Clavel A. Martinez, et al. v. The House of Representatives of the 13th Congress, et al.).
G.R. No. 169697 (Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. v. The House Committee on Justice, et al.).
G.R. No. 169751 (Rep. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al., v. The House of Representatives of the 13th Congress, et al.)".
R E S O L U T I O N
As a consequence of the "Hello Garci" controversy involving former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, on June 27, 2005 lawyer Oliver Lozano (Lozano) filed with the House of Representatives (House) an unverified Complaint for Impeachment[1] (the Lozano complaint), alleging the President's betrayal of public trust. On July 4, 2005, another lawyer, Jose P. Lopez, filed another unverified Complaint for Impeachment[2] (the Lopez complaint) involving the same subject matter.
On July 25, 2005, the first dya of the Second Session of the 13th Congress, 29 members and party-list representatives led by Representative Ana Theresa Hontiveros-Baraquiel of the Akbayan Party-List filed with the House a verified Amended Complaint against the President (the Baraquiel complaint) before the Office of the Secretary General of the House, involving the same subject matter plus some allegations of corruption.
On August 10, 2005, acting on Representative Edcel C. Lagman's motion, the Committee on Justice voted to declare the Lozano Complaint sufficient in form but insufficient in substance. Further, the Committee voted to treat the Baraquiel and Lopez complaints as separate and distinct from the Lozano complaint, and thus barred by the one-year bar rule and the ruling in Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives.[3] In plenary session on September 6, 2005, the House, voting 158-51 (with 6 abstentions), adopted House Resolution 933,[4] which approved the Justice Committee's recommendations and dismissed all the impeachment complaints against the President.
This prompted the petitioners in these cases to file separate petitions for certiorari and mandamus against the Hose and its Committee on Justice, seeking the nullification of House Resolution 933 and the issuance of an order directing the House, through the Committee on Justice, to take cognizance of the Baraquiel and Lopez complaints and proceed to the determination of their sufficiency or insufficiency in form and substance.
As it happened, however, the House of the 13th Congress adopted House Resolution 933 in 2005, which Congress ended its term in June 2007 before the Court could act on the petitions. Congress in not a continuing body with respect to the conduct of tis business.[5] It is clear from Section 78 of the Rules of the House of Representatives[6] that all unfinished business should be deemed terminated at the end of its term. Since each Congress acts separately and independently of the Congress before and after it, the subject impeachment complaints became functus officio and had to be re-filed anew in order to be taken up in the next Congress. There is no indication that this had been done.
What is more, the former President has ceased to be President as of June 30, 2010. The complaints for impeachment against her have, therefore, become moot.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petitions in these cases on ground of mootness."
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, G.R. 169561, pp. 63-67.
[2] Id. at 108-118.
[3] 460 Phil. 830 (2003).
[4] Rollo, pp. 503-509. Entitled "Resolution to dismiss the verified complaints for the impeachment of her Excellency President Macapagal-Arroyo filed by Att. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Jose P. Lopez for alleged betrayal of public trust and the amended complaint filed by Roque and Butuyan Law Offices, Hon. Francis Joseph G. Escudero, Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora, et al., for alleged culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust."
[5] See Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643. September 4, 2008, 564 SCRA 152, 228-229.
[6] Section 78. Calendar of Business. The Calendar of Business shall consist of the following:
a. Unfinished Business. This is business being considered by the House at the time of its last adjournment. Its consideration shall be resumed until it is disposed of. The Unfinished Business at the end of a session shall be resumed at the commencement of the next session as if no adjournment has taken place. At the end of the term of a Congress, all Unfinished Business are deemed terminated.
