REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REP. CLAVEL A. MARTINEZ et al., Petitioners -versus- THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of the 13 th CONGRESS, et al., SUPREME COURT Manila Respondents. X X GR NO. 160561 URGENT MOTION TO RESOLVE Petitioners, by counsel, respectfully move for an urgent resolution of the instant case on the following discussion: 1. The instant case was filed before this Honorable Court in the hope of putting a resolution to the constitutional issues that arose from last year s impeachment proceeding against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo that are capable of repetition yet evading review. The Petition raised the following issues: THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN PLENARY COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RATIFIED BY VOTE OF 158-51, THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE BY MAJORITY VOTE, AND AS EMBODIED IN COMMITTEE REPORT 1012, TO DISCUSS PREJUDICIAL AND THRESHOLD QUESTIONS AHEAD OF A DETERMINATION OF THE FORM AND 1
SUBSTANCE OF THE THREE IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE. II. 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 158-51, 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DISTINCT FROM THE ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT, CONSIDERING THAT THE DEFECTIVE ORIGINAL LOZANO COMPLAINT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WHILE THE LOPEZ COMPLAINT, IT BEING FRAUGHT WITH PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE INFIRMITIES, IS OF NO LEGAL EFFECT. III. 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 158-51, 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 THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE VARIOUS APPLICABLE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE ONE-YEAR CONSTITUTIONAL BAR DOES NOT APPLY. 1 2. As has been ably shown by the conduct of President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo s men, all kinds of technicalities have been raised against the impeachment complaint against her, in violation of the very intent of the constitutional clauses on impeachment. 1 See Petition for Certiorari, at 22. 2
3. But one year later, with the issues brought before this Honorable Court still pending, citizens of various groups and persuasions have converged to file yet another impeachment complaint against her before the House of Representatives and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo s lawyers are quick to raise the pendency of this case before the Honorable Court as an effective bar to the new effort to hold her accountable for her unconstitutional misdeeds in office. 4. The Petitioners draw the attention of this Honorable Court to a Manifestation made by lawyers Romulo B. Macalintal and Alberto C. Agra dated June 22, 2o06 informing the House of Representatives that as no impeachment complaint can be deliberated upon or considered by the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives and by the House of Representatives against the President at this time. The [one-year] ban on the filing of a new impeachment complaint remains operative to this day 2 5. The Macalintal-Agra Manifestation has explicitly referred to the instant proceeding the Martinez Petition to say that the initiation of new impeachment proceedings against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is still premature until such time as the Supreme Court decides with finality the Martinez Petition. 6. Pursuing the argument of the Macalintal-Agra Manifestation to its logical conclusion, it may give rise to the situation where the Court does not resolve a pending petition, such as the instant case, for the next four or five years while in the meantime, the President again and again commits impeachable offenses; does this mean that the citizens will have to wait for 2 A copy of the Manifestation is attached as ANNEX A. 3
the resolution of the case five years later before they can file another impeachment complaint? 7. It is in consideration of such absurd interpretation by Attys. Macalintal and Agra, and the equally absurd construction of the Respondents in the instant case, that the Petition in this case was filed, that is, for the Honorable Court to, among others, decide clearly and unequivocally, when the one-year bar rule on initiation of impeachment proceedings starts. 8. For if Attys. Macalintal and Agra are to be believed, the possibility of one year becoming more than three hundred sixty five (365) days, contrary to the legal 3 and ordinary acceptation of the term, is not remote; and the one year bar rule being applied to prohibit multiple impeachment proceedings initiated three hundred and sixty six (366) days apart from each other is neither an impossibility notwithstanding the very clear wording of the constitutional provision. 4 9. Given the conduct of the Respondents with respect to the impeachment complaints filed last year, what is feared as a not-so-remotely-possible scenario may well be in danger of becoming a very probable one. 10. And that may as well be if the issues raised in this instant case are not resolved by this Honorable Court with dispatch with no less than the principle of public office as a public trust becoming the victim in the process. 3 See Article 13, Civil Code. 4 Section 3 (5), Article XI of the Constitution states: No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. 4
11. The importance of the resolution of the issues raised in this case cannot be overemphasized as they have a direct bearing on the principle of accountability upon which the claim, nay the principle enshrined in no less than the Constitution, of a democratic Philippine government rests. 12. The Macalintal-Agra Manifestation certainly goes against the fundamental principle of the Constitution for public officers and employees to at all times be accountable to the people and to hold impeachable public officers into account for their impeachable misdeeds, giving them only a breathing room of only one year between each initiation of impeachment proceedings. 13. Which is why the herein Petitioners argue that the issues they have raised in the instant proceeding should not be mooted and declared academic by this Honorable Court because of this month s filing of impeachment complaints against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. 14. For otherwise, the principle of accountability at all times would be put to naught, becoming merely a policy of accountability until the next year, or worse, until this Honorable Court finally decides once and for all, perhaps in a case other than the one at bar, what the rules are. 15. At the very least, these issues, as they are capable of repetition yet evading review, 5 should be settled once and for all, for the future guidance of citizens interested in holding accountable any impeachable public officer for their misdeeds in office; that is, to prevent similar questions from reemerging, as this Honorable Court decided in Lacson v. Perez. 6 In fact, all the requirements laid down by this Honorable Court in the 5 Alunan v. Mirasol. 276 SCRA 501 (1997), cited in Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R Nos. 159085, 159185 and 159196, February 3, 2004. 6 Lacson v. Perez, GR No. 147780, May 10, 2001; 357 SCRA 756 (2001) 5
landmark case of Professor Randolf S. David, et al., v. Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo et. al., 7 applies in the instant case: The moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; 8 second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; 9 third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; 10 and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. 11 16. Obviously, there is a grave violation of the constitution here when the House of Representatives disregarded well-defined constitutional parameters for the proper conduct of an impeachment proceeding. 17. What is involved is also of exceptional character and situation involving paramount public interest a President accused of wrongdoing while in public office and the public s constitutional right to hold her accountable for her misdeeds is being denied them. 18. A judgment by this Honorable Court resolving the issues presented by this instant proceeding before it is required to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, a and the public, precisely because unsettled issues in the procedures for impeachment are being utilized by the unscrupulous to transform a sacrosanct procedure into a rat race of who files first. 7 G.R. No. 171396; G.R. No. 171409; G.R. No. 171485; G.R. No. 171483; G.R. No. 171400; G.R. No. 171489; G.R. No. 171424, May 3, 2006. 8 Citing Province of Batangas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004; 429 SCRA 736 (2004). 9 Citing Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001, 357 SCRA 756 (2001). 10 Citing Province of Batangas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004; 429 SCRA 736 (2004). 11 Citing Albaña v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 163302, July 23, 2004; 435 SCRA 98 (2004), Acop v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 134855, July 2, 2002; 383 SCRA 577 (2002), and Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004; 421 SCRA 656. (2001). 6
19. Lastly, it is clear that precisely because of these unsettled issues, what obtains is a situation capable of repetition as it is now being repeated yet evading review. 20. Thus, one year later, the same questions have reemerged in the new efforts to impeach Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for her patently unconstitutional acts while illegally occupying the Office of the President. 21. And once again, this Honorable Court stands between the past and the future of this troubled nation with a historical burden which it has a constitutional duty to bear. 22. The records of the instant case to which were consolidated two other cases, namely G.R. No. 169697 (Ernesto B. Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives) and G.R. No. 169751 (Rep. Benigno Simeon Aquino III et al., v. House of Representatives) show that the issues have already been joined with the exchange of pleadings between and among the parties. 23. In fact, in the instant case, GR NO. 160561, the Respondents have already filed their Comment to the Petition (The House of Representatives, through a Comment dated December 15, 2005 and the Office of the Solicitor General, through a Comment dated January 16, 2006). The Petitioners, in return, have likewise already submitted their Consolidated Reply dated March 24, 2006 to the Respondents Comment. 24. The Petitioners in G.R. No. 169751 have likewise already filed their Consolidated Reply dated April 27, 2006 to the Respondent s Comment. Only the Petitioner in the second case has not filed any pleading 7
subsequent to his own Petition. In any case, it should not in any way affect the immediate resolution of the instant consolidated cases. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Petitioners respectfully pray that this Honorable Court immediately resolve the instant consolidated cases and render judgment declaring the patent unconstitutionality of the questioned acts. Other relief just and equitable are also prayed for. Makati City for the City of Manila, July 3, 2006. ROQUE AND BUTUYAN LAW OFFICES Unit 1904, Antel 2000 Corporate Center No. 121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village Makati City By: 8
H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR. PTR No. 4189667, 1.11.06, Makati City IBP No. 499912, 1.25. 00, Lifetime Roll no. 36976 JOEL R. BUTUYAN PTR No.4189664; 1-11-06; Makati City IBP No. 500459; 01-25-00; Lifetime Roll No. 36911 ROGER R. RAYEL PTR No. 7258042, 1.17.06, Quezon City IBP No. 02159, Lifetime, Quezon City Roll No. 44106 ROMEL REGALADO BAGARES PTR No. 4189663, 1.11.06, Makati City` IBP No 670994, 1.11.06, SocSarGen Chapter Roll No. 49518 COPY FURNISHED: THE HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village Makati City 1229 ATTY. LEONARDO B. PALICTE III Chief Counsel and Deputy Secretary General HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LEGAL AFFAIRS DEPARMENT BATASAN COMPLEX, NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CENTER QUEZON CITY Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. Francisco Law Office (Counsel for Petitioner in G.R. No. 169697) Unit 201 Liberty Building 835 A. Arnaiz Avenue (Pasay Road) Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City Attys. Jose Luis Martin Gascon & Roberto Eugenio T. Cadiz 9
(Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 169751) 1602-A West Trade Center 132 West Avenue, Quezon City EXPLANATION Because of time and personnel constraints, a copy of this Reply is being sent by registered mail to the other parties in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. ROMEL REGALADO BAGARES 10