MOTION FOR RESOLUTION

Transcription

1 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila REP. CLAVEL A. MARTINEZ, et al., Petitioners, - versus - G.R. No THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of the 13 TH CONGRESS, et al., Respondents. x x MOTION FOR RESOLUTION Petitioners, by counsel, unto the Honorable Supreme Court, most respectfully state that: 1. The instant Petition was filed before this Honorable Court on 23 September The Petition sought the determination of the following issues, among others: a. Whether or not the House of Representatives in plenary committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ratified by a vote of , the Decision of the Committee on Justice by majority vote, and as embodied in Committee Report 1012, to treat the Amended Complaint as separate and distinct from the Original Lozano Complaint, considering that the defective Original Lozano Complaint has already been superseded by the Amended Complaint while the Lopez Complaint, it being fraught with procedural and substantive infirmities, is of no legal effect. b. Whether or not the House of Representatives in plenary committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ratified by a vote of , the Decision of the Committee on Justice by majority vote, and as embodied in Committee Report 1012, to dismiss the Amended Complaint as a prohibited pleading under the ruling in the Francisco case when it is clear under the Constitution and the various applicable rules of procedure, the one year constitutional bar does not apply. 1 1 Cf. Petition for Certiorari, at 22.

2 Page 2 of 6 3. In the meantime, Atty. Roel Pulido, on 05 October 2007, filed with the House of Representatives an Impeachment Complaint against the President of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (hereinafter referred to as the Pulido Complaint ). 2 A copy of the news article reporting the filing of the said Impeachment Complaint is hereto attached as Annex A. 4. On the other hand, Vice Governor of Ilioilo Rolex T. Suplico, joined by Atty. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., Angelito Banayo, Atty. Josefina T. Lichauco, Dr. Ma. Dominga Padilla, Fr. Joe Dizon, Dr. Ma. Serena I. Diokno, Dean Consuelo Joaquin Paz, Manuel Baviera and Roel Garcia, filed with the House of Representatives a Motion to File Supplemental Complaint with the Supplemental Impeachment Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the Suplico Supplemental Complaint ) attached, on 05 November A copy of the Motion to File Supplemental Complaint and the Supplemental Impeachment Complaint are hereto attached as Annexes B and B-1, respectively. 5. The Supplemental Impeachment Complaint was filed because of occurrences or events which have happened since the filing of the Impeachment Complaint against Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos, Jr. It is also seeking to add a new respondent, the President of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. 6. Moreover, Atty. Adel Tamano, on even date, filed with the House of Representatives a Supplemental Impeachment Complaint against the President (hereinafter referred to as the Tamano Supplemental Complaint ) to supplant the Pulido Complaint. 3 A copy of the news article reporting the filing of the Tamano Supplemental Complaint as well as the Suplico Supplemental Complaint is hereto attached as Annex C. 2 See the Philippine Daily Inquirer report regarding this matter at 3 See the Philippine Daily Inquirer report regarding this matter at

3 Page 3 of 6 7. However, in a letter dated 05 November 2007, signed by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives, Roberto P. Nazareno, the Suplico Supplemental Complaint was returned to the Complainants. A copy of the letter is hereto attached as Annex D. 8. The Tamano Supplemental Complaint was similarly rejected by the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives. 4 A copy of the news article reporting the rejection of the Tamano Supplemental Complaint as well as the Suplico Supplemental Complaint is hereto attached as Annex E. 9. With this factual background, it is clear that the issues that have been raised in the instant Petition have resurfaced. Without a definite ruling on the issues raised in the instant Petition, the Supplemental Complaints are destined to take the path of the Amended Complaints subject of the instant Petition. 10. The issues in the instant Petition are capable of repetition yet evading review 5 as in fact, these issues have re-emerged with the recent rejection of the Suplico and Tamano Supplemental Complaints. Thus, the Honorable Supreme Court must not shirk from its duty to settle these issues once and for all, for the guidance and peace of mind of all citizens. 11. Also, considering the paramount public interest involved in the instant Petition, that is, the denial of the public s Constitutional right to hold accountable a President accused of wrongdoing while in public office, the Supreme Court should not shun its responsibility to eradicate whatever obstruction that is preventing the public from the exercise of their rights. 4 See the Philippine Daily Inquirer report regarding this matter at 5 Alunan vs. Mirasol, G.R. No , July 31, 1997.

4 Page 4 of Moreover, the records of this case show that the issues have long been joined. Thus, Petitioners have filed their Consolidated Reply to the Comment to the Petition filed by the House of Representatives on 15 December 2005 and the Comment to the Petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General on 16 January Thus, Petitioners humbly beseech the Honorable Supreme Court to take immediate action regarding the instant matter. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the instant Petition be resolved immediately and that a judgment be rendered declaring the patent unconstitutionality of the questioned acts. Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for. Makati City for the City of Manila, 08 November ROQUE AND BUTUYAN LAW OFFICES Counsel for Petitioners Unit 1904 Antel 2000 Corporate Center 121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village Makati City / administration@roquebutuyan.com By: H. HARRY L ROQUE, JR. Roll No PTR No , , Makati City IBP No , Makati City, Lifetime Member JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN Roll No PTR No , , Makati City

5 Page 5 of 6 IBP No , Makati City, Lifetime Member ROGER R. RAYEL Roll No PTR No , , Quezon City IBP No , Lifetime Member ROMEL REGALADO BAGARES Roll No PTR No , , Makati City IBP No , SocSarGen CHRISTOPHER F.C. BOLASTIG Roll No PTR No , , Makati City IBP No , , Samar DEXTER DONNE B. DIZON Roll No PTR No , , Quezon City IBP No , , Laguna Copy furnished: THE HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village Makati City 1229 ATTY. LEONARDO B. PALICTE III Chief Counsel and Deputy Secretary General HOUSE OF REPRESENTATTIVES LEGAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT Batasan Complex, National Government Center Quezon City ATTY. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. Francisco Law Office (Counsel for Petitioner in G.R. No ) Unit 201 Liberty Building 835 A. Arnaiz Avenue (Pasay Road) Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City ATTYS. JOSE LUIS MARTIN GASCON & ROBERTO EUGENIO T. CADIZ (Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No ) 1602-A West Trade Center 132 West Avenue, Quezon City EXPLANATION ON SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

6 Page 6 of 6 This Motion is being served on the parties by registered mail due to distance, time constraint and lack of messengerial services. DEXTER DONNE B. DIZON