Gutierrez vs.

House of Representatives Committee on Justice Paola Vargas

Feb 15, 2011 Resolution
Basically: 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:
On July 22, 2010 respondents Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Danilo Lim, and Felipe & Evelyn Pestano (Baraquel group) filed an
impeachment complaint against petitioner (P).
On August 3, 2010, respondents Reyes et al. filed another impeachment complaint against (P). Both impeachment complaints are
endorsed by different Party-List representatives.
On same day, HOR provisionally adopted the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment proceedings of the 14
th
Congress
On August 11, 2010, during its plenary session, HOR simultaneously referred both complaints to HOR Committee on Justice (COJ).
On September 1, 2010, COJ, by Resolution found both complaints sufficient in form (it considered the complaints referred to it at
exactly the same time)
Meanwhile the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment proceedings of the 15
th
Congress was published September 2, 2010.
(P) tried to file a MR to the September 1, 2010 resolution but COJ refused to accept motion for prematurity
After hearing, COJ, by Resolution of September 7, 2010, found the 2 complaints, which both allege culpable violation of the
Constitution and betrayal of public trust, sufficient in substance.
*Allegations against (P) basically say that Ombudsman has low conviction rate, inexcusable delay in investigating, failure to
prosecute those involved in Fertilizer Fund Scam, NBN-ZTE deal, P1M dinner at Le Cirque Restaurant in New York and others.
Repeated delays and failure to take action on cases impressed with public interest.
(P): denied due process and violation of one-year rule ban
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE: WON COJ committed GAD in issuing the two assailed Resolutions.
ISSUE RULING RATIO
Whether the case presents a
justiciable controversy
YES Respondents: COJ exercising a political act that is discretionary in
nature in taking cognizance of the two impeachment complaints.

Court: Argument that impeachment proceedings are beyond reach of
judicial review was debunked in Francisco vs. HOR.
Constitution did not leave matter of impeachment to discretion of
Congress but provided for judicially discoverable standards for
determining validity of exercise of such discretion through power of
judicial review.

Judicial review is not only a power but a duty of the judiciary
Case-or-controversy/Ripeness requirement:
Validity of simultaneous referral and need to publish Rules calls for
immediate interpretation.

WON there was a violation of
the due process clause
NO Petitioner:
(1) Tupas chairperson of COJ is subject of investigation Ps
heading and father has been charged by P with violation of
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act -> bias and
vindictiveness played a big part in finding sufficiency in form
and substance of complaint.

Court: Bereft of Merit
COJ is not a one-man-committee, but a collegial body.
Besides, Tupas did not vote but merely presided.

Petitioner:
(2) There is indecent and precipitate haste which is an indication
of bias when COJ find the two complaints sufficient in form
and substance within FIVE minutes.

Court: Abbreviated pace in proceedings is not per se an indication of
bias. Ones prompt dispatch may be anothers due haste.
Presumption of regularity
Petitioner:
(3) COJ failed to ascertain sufficiency in form and substance of
complaints on basis of standards set by Constitution and its
own Impeachment Rules

Court: Claim fails
The determination of sufficiency of form and substance exponent of
the express grant of rule-making power in the HOR

The Impeachment Rules are clear in echoing the constitutional
requirements. Sufficiency in form and substance requirement is made
by House in discharge of its Constitutional duty. (to effectively carry
out impeachment process)

Petitioner: (I think this is important)
(4) Denied due process with the delay in publication of
Impeachment Rules
Rules were published after COJ ruled on sufficiency in form of
complaints, citing Sec 3(8) Art XI Congress shall promulgate its rules
on impeachment

Court:
Promulgation and publication have different statutory usage.

Promulgation generally understood as to make known. Since
Constitution did not restrict promulgation to publication, then it is to
be understood in a general sense. Discretion of Congress to
determine how to promulgate its Impeachment Rules since
Constitution did not prescribe specific method of promulgation.
Neri ruling not applicable because Constitution prescribed that rules
are to be published in inquiries in aid of legislation.

Besides, impeachment provisions are self-executing. Assuming
arguendo that publication is required, lack of it wont nullify
proceedings which faithfully comply with self-executing provisions of
Constitution.

No GAD when HOR provisionally adopted 14
th
Congress Impeachment
Rules because it is within the power of House to promulgate its Rules
on Impeachment to effectively carry out its purposed.

Rules are also aid in procedural aspects of impeachment, hence can
be given retroactive effect since they wont impair any rights.
Whether the simultaneous
referral of the two complaints
violated the Constitution rule
of one-year ban
NO Petitoner: Start of the one-year bar from the filing of the first
impeachment complaint against her is on July 22, 2010 or four days
before the 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.

Impeachment proceeding is initiated by mere filing of impeachment
complaint.

Court:
Initiate means to filing of impeachment complaint COUPLED WITH
Congress taking initial action of complaint.

Francisco: Initiation takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment complaint AND referral to the House COJ.

Petitioners emphasis on impeachment complaint. Constitution
mentions proceedings, not complaints.

Complaint lighting a matchstick. Simultaneous referral of multiple
complaints is lighting several matchsticks lights candle at the same
time. What is important is that there should only be ONE CANDLE that
is kindled in year. (one year ban in a metaphorical nutshell)

Restrictive interpretation: would put premium on haste; first-to-file
scheme would put strain on actual complainants who would be
brushed simply because someone got there first.

HOR in plenary session would be the one who would deem an
impeachment proceeding initiated.

2-fold purpose of one-year ban:
1) To prevent undue or too frequent harassment.
2) Allow legislature to do its principal task of legislation
Applicability of Rules on
Criminal Procedure (not sure if
relevant)
Claim
deserves
scant
consideration
Petitioner:
COJ committed GAD when it disregarded its own Rules. Sec 16 of
Impeachment Rules provides that Rules of Criminal Procedure,as far
as practicable, shall apply to proceedings
One-offense, one complaint rule complaint must only charge one
offense
Court: Constitution allows the indictment for multiple impeachment
offenses, each charge representing an article of impeachment.