REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSUPREME COURT

MANILA

ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.,Petitioner,

x-------------------------x

- versus - SC G.R. No. ____________For: Certiorari Prohibition and Mandamus withPrayer for the Issuance of aTemporary Restraining Orderand/or Writ of PreliminaryInjunction

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, REP. SIMEONDATUMANONG, THE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY ITSSPEAKER, REP. JOSE DE VENECIA, andPRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,

Respondents.x------------------------------x

P E T I T I O NPetitioner, for himself, respectfully states:

NATURE OF THE PETITION with PREFATORY STATEMENT

-------------------------This is a petition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of

Civil Procedure (1) for Certiorari, to nullify Rule II, Sections 2, 4,5 and 6, of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings adoptedby the 11th and 13th Congress for being unconstitutional and violativeof Article XI, Sections 1, 2 and 3 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of theConstitution of the Republic of the Philippines and having beenadopted and issued without authority of law and/or with grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction; (2) forProhibition, to stop further actions and proceedings made and arebeing made pursuant to or consistent with said void andunsconstitutional provisions of the Rules of Procedure in ImpeachmentProceedings, for being violative of the Philippine Constitution andfor having been issued/carried out without authority of law and/orwith grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess ofjurisdiction; and (3) for Mandamus, to direct respondents, to complywith Article XI, Sections 1, 2 and 3 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of thePhilippine Constitution and admit all impeachment complaints againstrespondent President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo and, further, for therespondent House of Representatives to comply with Article XI,Section 3 (8) likewise of the Philippine Constitution, mandating that“Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectivelycarry out the purpose of this Section (Article XI, Section 3),”meaning, rules on impeachment which are consistent with and notviolative of the Philippine Constitution.

The constitutional issues raised in the instant Petition are oftranscendental importance and affect the national interest and willimpact on the Filipino nation as a whole. The said constitutional

1

issues deserve the attention of the Honorable Court in view of theirseriousness, novelty and weights as precedents.1 The resolution of theinstant Petition may also settle once and for all constitutionalissues regarding impeachment that regularly confront the Filipinonation from time to time. Thus, petitioner prays of the Court to relaxthe rules on standing.

The standing of petitioner and others who may file petitionsdealing with some or all of the issues raised in the instant Petitionhas long been settled by the Honorable Court in Ernesto B. Francisco,Jr. vs. The House of Representatives, et al. and consolidated cases,415 SCRA 45 (2003).

Petitioner is also a member of the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines in good standing. As such member of the Philippine Bar,petitioner is also an officer of the court and it is his duty to useall available legal remedies to put a stop to an abuse of theconstitutional process of impeachment to suit purely political andpersonal ends.

Petitioner himself was a victim of the capricious and arbitrarychanges in the Rules on Impeachment introduced by the 12th Congress on28 November 2001, that is, shortly after he filed his firstimpeachment complaint against then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto on 6November 2001. The said rules paved the way for the dismissal ofpetitioner’s first impeachment complaint without the benefit of ahearing and formal investigation.

The 12th Congress also introduced Rule V, Sections 16 and 17whereby impeachment is deemed initiated only on the day the House ofRepresentatives, by a vote of at least one-third (1/3), affirms thefinding of the Committee on Justice that a complaint is sufficient insubstance or overturns its finding that the complaint is insufficientin substance. During the 11th Congress, the rule was thatimpeachment is deemed initiated upon the filing of a verifiedcomplaint for impeachment by any member of the House ofRepresentatives, or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement byany member of the House, or by one-third (1/3) of all the members ofthe House.

The irony is that Rule V, Sections 16 and 17 were said to havebeen introduced by the 12th Congress to ensure that a secondimpeachment complaint against respondent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would not be barred by the earlier filing of a firstimpeachment complaint against her likewise by Atty. Oliver O. Lozanoand endorsed by Representative Prospero Pichay, an ally of respondentPresident Macapagal-Arroyo.

Petitioner, together with Representatives Oscar S. Moreno andSatur C. Ocampo and the heads/representatives of fifteen (15) non-government and political organizations, also filed a secondimpeachment complaint against Ombudsman Desierto for the latter’sfailure to prosecute those responsible for the Tax Credit Scam.However, those pushing for the dismissal of petitioner’s firstimpeachment complaint rushed the voting on the Committee Report by theHouse in plenary. Accordingly, by virtue of Rule V, Sections 16 and17, the second impeachment complaint was barred.

In view of his personal experience in impeachment proceedingsbefore the House of Representatives, in November 2003, petitioner wasprompted to file a petition seeking to nullify certain provisions ofthe impeachment rules and bar the second impeachment complaint againstChief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. The said petition, together with1 Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000) citedin Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. vs. The House of Representatives, et al. andConsolidated Cases, 415 SCRA 45 (2003).

2

seventeen (17) other petitions subsequently filed, culminated in theFrancisco, Jr. vs. the House of Representatives ruling or what is nowpopularly referred to as the “Francisco ruling” or “Franciscodoctrine.” Under the Francisco ruling, an impeachment proceeding isdeemed initiated upon the filing of an impeachment complaint and itsreferral to the Committee on Justice. Thus, the Honorable Courtdeclared Rule V, Sections 16 and 17 unconstitutional and barred thesecond impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide.

However, it is unfortunate that the “Francisco ruling” or“Francisco doctrine” has become the battle cry of administrationrepresentatives trying to bar the Amended Complaint for Impeachmentagainst respondent President Macapagal-Arroyo. However, as will bediscussed below, the Francisco ruling is not applicable to theimpeachment proceedings now pending in the Committee on Justice.

In the alternative, petitioner respectfully submits that the ruling inFrancisco vs. House of Representatives needs to be re-examined thisearly in the light of recent developments. The ruling that animpeachment proceeding is deemed initiated by the mere filing of animpeachment complaint and its referral to the Committee on Justice isclearly susceptible of abuse and will effectively shield a corrupt,impeachable official from impeachment. This is because all that animpeachable official needs to do to avoid being impeached is to yearlyask somebody to file a sham impeachment complaint or a complaint whichcan easily be declared insufficient in form and substance and have itendorsed by an ally-representative. Consequnetly, the said officialwill always be immune from impeachment by virtue of the one (1)-yearbar rule under Article XI, Section 3 (5) of the PhilippineConstitution.

Without casting aspersion on Atty. Lozano, who, under thecircumstances, may have faced certain constraints in filing theoriginal Complaint, what is happening in the present impeachmentproceeding against respondent President Macapagal-Arroyo indicatesthat the foregoing scenario is possible. Without the AmendedComplaint, the Committee on Justice would have no difficulty rulingthat the original Complaint is insufficient in form and substance.

First, the original Complaint was not verified; it was merely sworn.Second, at the time the original Complaint was filed on 27 June 2005,it had no endorsement by a Member of the House. The Resolution ofEndorsement of Representative Marcoleta was filed only on or about 29June 2005 and even after Atty. Lozano had filed a SupplementalComplaint for Impeachment on 28 June 2005. Third, the form of theoriginal Complaint itself is foreign to the standard complaint oraffidavit-complaint prepared and used by lawyers. Fourth, theallegations or contents of the original Complaint may not be able tomeet the standard that the “requirement of sufficiency of substance ismet if there is a recital of facts constituting the offense chargedand determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee.” Finally,fifth, Atty. Lozano himself had to file a total of six (6) so-calledSupplemental Affidavit of Complaint for Impeachment in support of theoriginal Complaint for Impeachment and Supplemental Complaint forImpeachment. This fact alone speaks a lot about the insufficiency ofthe original Complaint filed by Atty. Lozano.

Moreover, there is a need for a re-examination of the ruling ofthe Honorable Court in Francisco vs. The House of Representativesbecause a careful examination of the proceedings and records of the1986 Constitutional Commission seems to show that there was a resolveto maintain the initiation of an impeachment proceeding as aprerogative of the House of Representatives as a collective body.

In the instant Petition, petitioner also raised the issue ofwhether or not the Philippine Constitution requires that a hearing

3

should first be conducted by the Committee on Justice before it maydismiss an impeachment complaint on the ground that it is notsufficient in form and substance.

Petitioner is also raising to the Honorable Court the issue ofwhether or not the Constitution requires that one-third (1/3) of allthe members of the House of Representatives must file an impeachmentcomplaint at the first instance for such complaint to constitute thearticles of impeachment or whether or not the Constitution allows whatis commonly referred to as a “creeping impeachment.”

There being a very urgent need to resolve the issues presentedherein and having no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in theordinary course of the law, petitioner has come to the Honorable Courtfor relief.

Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are applicable to theinstant case pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987Philippine Constitution.

PETITIONER’S SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATEMENT OFMATERIAL DATES AND SUBMISSION OF A CERTIFIED TRUE COPYREQUIREMENTS UNDER REVISED CIRCULAR NO. 1-88 ANDADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 3-96 ---------------------------------------------------On 25 August 2005, petitioner wrote a letter-request to the Hon.

Roberto P. Nazareno, Secretary General of the House ofRepresentatives, requesting for a certified true copy of the Rules onImpeachment of the 11th Congress, as adopted by the 13th Congress, aswell as copies of the Complaint for Impeachment filed by Atty. OliverO. Lozano, Complaint for Impeachment filed by Atty. Jose P. Lopez andthe Amended Complaint filed by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and oppositioncongressmen led by Representative Francis G. Excudero andrepresentatives/heads of non-government organizations.

However, to date, Secretary General Nazareno has yet to complywith petitioner’s request.

The foregoing notwithstanding, petitioner has attached to theinstant Petition a Matrix on the Rules of Procedure for ImpeachmentProceedings adopted by the 11th and 12th Congress and copies of theComplaint for Impeachment filed by Atty. Lozano, Complaint forImpeachment filed by Atty. Lopez and the Amended Complaint, amongothers.

Quite clearly, the refusal of the Office of the Secretary Generalto immediately issue a certified true copy of the Rules on Impeachmentof the 11th and 13th Congress is without lawful justification and mayrender the instant Petition partly moot and academic.

Petitioner thus begs the indulgence of the Honorable Court andprays that the Matrix on the Rules of Procedure for ImpeachmentProceedings adopted by the 11th and 12th Congress attached hereto beadmitted in the meantime as substantial compliance with therequirement of submission of a certified true copy. Petitioner firmlyundertakes that he will submit the requested certified true copyimmediately upon his receipt of the same from the Secretary General ofthe House of Representatives.

Copies of petitioner’s letter dated 25 August 2005 and the Matrixon the Rules of Procedure for Impeachment Proceedings adopted by the11th and 12th Congress are attached hereto as Annexes “A” and “B”,respectively.

4

Moreover, to date, or almost four (4) years later, petitioner hasnot yet received the official rulings on the impeachment complaints hefiled in November 2001 and February 2002.

THE PARTIES1.1 Petitioner Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. is a member of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines and a practicing lawyer byprofession. He may be served with the orders and processes of theHonorable Court at his office address at Unit 501 Liberty Building 835A. Arnaiz Avenue (Pasay Road), Legaspi Village, Makati City.

1.2 Respondent Committee on Justice is represented herein byits Chairman, Representative Simeon Datumanong. He holds office atthe House of Representatives at the Batasan Complex, Batasan Road,Diliman, Quezon City.

1.3 Respondent House of Representatives is represented hereinby its Speaker, Representative Jose De Venecia. He also holds officeat the House of Representatives at the Batasan Complex, Batasan Road,Diliman, Quezon City.

1.4 Respondent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is theincumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines and respondentin the impeachment complaints before the House Committee on Justice.She holds office at the Malacañang Palace, Manila.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE2.1 On 27 June 2005, Atty. Oliver O. Lozano filed a Complaint

for Impeachment against respondent President Macapagal-Arroyo chargingthe latter with betrayal of public trust.

A copy of the Complaint for Impeachment dated 27 June 2005 isattached hereto as Annex “C”.

2.2 On 28 June 2005, Atty. Lozano filed a SupplementalComplaint for Impeachment against respondent President Macapagal-Arroyo.

A copy of the Supplemental Complaint for Impeachment dated 28June 2005 is attached hereto as Annex “D”.

2.3 On 29 June 2005, representative Rudante D. Marcoleta fileda Resolution of Endorsement of the Complaint for Impeachment andSupplemental Complaint for Impeachment filed by Atty. Lozano.

A copy of the Resolution of Endorsement subscribed on 29 June2005 is attached hereto as Annex “E”.

2.4 On 29 June 2005, Atty. Lozano filed a Second SupplementalAffidavit of Complaint for Impeachment against respondent PresidentMacapagal-Arroyo.

A copy of the Second Supplemental Affidavit of Complaint forImpeachment dated 29 June 2005 is attached hereto as Annex “F”.

2.5 On 30 June 2005, Atty. Lozano filed a Third SupplementalAffidavit of Complaint for Impeachment against respondent PresidentMacapagal-Arroyo.

A copy of the Third Supplemental Affidavit of Complaint forImpeachment dated 30 June 2005 is attached hereto as Annex “G”.

2.6 On 30 June 2005, Atty. Jose P. Lopez filed a “Motion andManifestation for Leave to be Allowed to be a Co-Complainant of Atty.Oliver Lozano Relative to his Complaint for Impeachment.”

5

A copy of the said Motion and Manifestation dated 30 June 2005 isattached hereto as Annex “H”.

2.7 On 4 July 2005, Atty. Lozano filed a Fourth SupplementalAffidavit of Complaint for Impeachment against respondent PresidentMacapagal-Arroyo.

A copy of the Fourth Supplemental Affidavit of Complaint forImpeachment dated 4 July 2005 is attached hereto as Annex “I”.

2.8 On 4 July 2005, Atty. Lozano filed a Fifth SupplementalAffidavit of Complaint for Impeachment against respondent PresidentMacapagal-Arroyo.

A copy of the Fifth Supplemental Affidavit of Complaint forImpeachment dated 4 July 2005 is attached hereto as Annex “J”.

2.9 On 4 July 2005, Atty. Lopez filed a Complaint forImpeachment against respondent Macapagal-Arroyo likewise charging herof betrayal of public trust. The Complaint for Impeachment has aResolution of Endorsement of Representative Antonio C. Alvarez.

A copy of the Complaint for Impeachment, together with a copy ofthe Resolution of Endorsement, both dated 4 July 2005, are attachedhereto as Annex “K”.

2.10 On 5 July 2005, Atty. Lozano filed a Sixth SupplementalComplaint for Impeachment against respondent President Macapagal-Arroyo.

A copy of the Sixth Supplemental Affidavit of Complaint forImpeachment dated 5 July 2005 is attached hereto as Annex “L”.

2.11 On 18 July 2005, a Resolution of Endorsement of theComplaint for Impeachment of Atty. Lozano was filed by RepresentativeRolex Suplico.

A copy of the Resolution of Endorsement dated 18 July 2005 isattached hereto as Annex “M”.

2.12 On 19 July 2005, respondent President Macapagal-Arroyo,through her counsel, Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer, filed an Answer ExAbundante Ad Cautelam.

A copy of the Answer Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam dated 19 July 2005is attached hereto as Annex “N”.

2.13 On 21 July 2005, Atty. Lozano filed a Seventh SupplementalAffidavit of Complaint for Impeachment against respondent PresidentMacapagal-Arroyo.

A copy of the Seventh Supplemental Affidavit of Complaint forImpeachment dated 21 July 2005 is attached hereto as Annex “O”.

2.14 On 25 July 2005, an Amended Complaint was filed by Atty.Lozano, opposition representatives led by Representative Francis G.Escudero and heads/ representatives of numerous non-governmentorganizations.

A copy of the Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Annex “P”.

2.15 On 25 July 2005, at 8:01 o’clock in the morning, SpeakerJose De Venecia, Jr. directed the Secretary General to include in theOrder of Business the Complaint for Impeachment filed by Atty. Lozanoand endorsed by Representatives Marcoleta and Suplico, the

6

Supplemental Complaint and Supplemental Affidavits of Complaints forImpeachment likewise filed by Atty. Lozano, the Answer Ex Abundante AdCautelam filed by Atty. Ferrer, among others.

A copy of the Memorandum dated 25 July 2005 is attached hereto asAnnex “Q”.

2.16 Likewise, on 25 July 2005, Speaker De Venecia directed theSecretary General to include in the Order of Business the Complaintfor Impeachment filed by Atty. Lopez and endorsed by RepresentativeAlvarez.

A copy of the Memorandum dated 25 July 2005 is attached hereto asAnnex “R”.

2.17 On 26 July 2005, at 1:09 o’clock in the afternoon, Atty.Lopez filed a Motion and Affidavit of Withdrawal/Desistance.

A copy of the Motion and Affidavit of Withdrawal/ Desistancedated 26 July 2005 is attached hereto as Annex “S”.

2.18 On 26 July 2005, at 4:20 o’clock in the afternoon, theCommittee on Justice received the Complaint for Impeachment filed byAtty. Lozano and endorsed by Representatives Marcoleta and Suplico,the Supplemental Complaint and Supplemental Affidavits of Complaintsfor Impeachment likewise filed by Atty. Lozano, the Answer ExAbundante Ad Cautelam filed by Atty. Ferrer, among others.

A copy of the letter-transmittal dated 26 July 2005 is attachedhereto as Annex “T”.

2.19 Likewise, on 26 July 2005, at 4:20 o’clock in theafternoon, the Committee on Justice received the Complaint forImpeachment filed by Atty. Lopez and endorsed by RepresentativeAlvarez.

A copy of the letter-transmittal dated 26 July 2005 is attachedhereto as Annex “U”.

2.20 Likewise, on 26 July 2005, at 4:20 o’clock in the

afternoon, the Committee on Justice received the Amended Complaintfiled by Atty. Lozano, opposition representatives andheads/representatives of non-government organizations.

A copy of the letter-transmittal dated 26 July 2005 is attachedhereto as Annex “V”.

2.21 On 30 August 2005, the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported aMalacañang Palace plot to kill the impeachment complaint againstrespondent President Macapagal-Arroyo. The story is captioned “Solonsdenounce plot to kill impeach bid today.”

2.22 Understandably, thereafter, the Committee on Justiceeffectively barred the Amended Complaint filed by Atty. Lozano,opposition representatives and heads/ representatives of non-government organizations. Needless to state, this paved the way forthe dismissal of the original Complaint for Impeachment filed by Atty.Lozano, which, on its face, appears to be lacking in form andsubstance.

Hence, this Petition.

G R O U N D SI

7

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE ACTED IN EXCESS OFITS JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OFDISCRETION IN BARRING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT INVIOLATION OF RULE XI, SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 (2) OFTHE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION WHICH GUARANTEES THERIGHT TO FILE AN IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST ANIMPEACHABLE OFFICIAL

IIIN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND WITHGRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ADOPTING RULE II,SECTION 2 OF THE RULES ON IMPEACHMENT INVIOLATION OF ARTICLE XI, SECTION 3 (5) OF THEPHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

IIITHE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ACTED IN EXCESS OFITS JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OFDISCRETION IN ADOPTING RULE II, SECTIONS 4, 5 AND6, IN THE PROCESS DEPRIVING AN ORDINARY CITIZENOF HIS RIGHT TO FILE AN IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT ANDTO BE HEARD AND PROVE HIS CHARGES BEFORE THECOMMITTEE ON JUSTICE

IVARTICLE XI, SECTION 3 (2) AND (4) OF THEPHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TOMEAN THAT AN IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT DOES NOT HAVETO BE FILED BY ONE-THIRD OF ALL THE MEMBERS OFTHE HOUSE AT THE TIME OF FILING FOR IT TOCONSTITUTE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND FORTRIAL IN THE SENATE TO FORTHWITH PROCEED

DISCUSSION

I. The House Committee on Justice actedin excess of its jurisdiction and withgrave abuse of discretion in barringthe Amended Complaint in violation ofArticle XI, Sections 1, 2 and 3 (2) ofthe Philippine Constitution whichguarantees the right to file animpeachment complaint against animpeachable official. -----------------------------Rule II, Section 2 of the Rules on Impeachment of the 11th

Congress, which was subsequently adopted by the 13th Congress,provides that impeachment is initiated upon the mere filing of averified complaint for impeachment by any member of the House ofRepresentatives, or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement byany member of the House, or by one-third (1/3) of all the members ofthe House. Rule II, Section 2 provides thus:

“RULE IIINITIATING IMPEACHMENT

8

Section 2. Modes of Initiating Impeachment. -Impeachment shall be initiated by:

(a) a verified complaint filed by any Member of the House;

(b) a verified complaint filed by any citizen upon aresolution of endorsement by any Member of the House; or

(c) by a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filedby at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of theHouse.”

In this regard, Article XI, Section 2 (5) of the PhilippineConstitution, to wit:

“(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiatedagainst the same official more than once within a period ofone year.”

In the Francisco case, the Honorable Court, in interpretingArticle XI, Section 3 (5) of the Philippine Constitution, ruled thatan impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated upon the filing of animpeachment complaint and its referral to the Committee on Justice.The Honorable Court ruled thus:

“xxx xxx

Having concluded that the initiation takes place bythe act of filing and referral or endorsement of theimpeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or,by the filing by at least one-third of the members of theHouse of Representatives with the Secretary General of theHouse, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomesclear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated,another impeachment complaint may not be filed against thesame official within a one year period.

xxx xxx”

It is unfortunate that the ruling of the Supreme Court in theFrancisco case has become the battle cry of administrationrepresentatives seeking to bar the amended impeachment complaintagainst respondent President Macapagal-Arroyo. However, the Franciscoruling is not exactly applicable to the impeachment proceeding beforethe Committee on Justice which involved an original Complaint forImpeachment and an Amended Complaint. Thus, the issue involved in thepresent impeachment proceeding is basically the propriety or validityof the amended complaint. This issue element was absent in theFrancisco ruling.

In the Francisco case, there were two (2) distinct and separateimpeachment complaints filed. On 2 June 2003, former President JosephEjericto Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief JusticeDavide and seven (7) other Associate Justices of the Honorable Court.On 22 October 2003, the Committee on Justice voted to dismiss the saidcomplaint. The following day, 23 October 2003, a second impeachmentcomplaint was filed against Chief Justice Davide by members of theHouse numbering more than one-third (1/3) of all its members. It wasthe position of the endorsers of the second impeachment complaint thatit was not yet barred because the Committee Report dismissing thefirst complaint has not been sent to, and voted upon by, the House inplenary.

In this regard, since the Rules on Criminal Procedure may besuppletory to the impeachment rules, Rule 110, Section 14 of the

9

latter rules becomes relevant. Under this rule, a complaint orinformation may be amended, in form or substance, without leave ofcourt, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the pleaand during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leaveof court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to therights of the accused.

In a criminal proceeding, a plea is entered during arraignment,which may only take place after a preliminary investigation has beenconducted and a criminal information has been filed. This means thatgreat leeway is accorded to amendments of a complaint in a criminalproceeding and, by analogy, in an impeachment proceeding which hasbeen likened to a preliminary investigation.

This is in contrast to a civil proceeding wherein the Rules ofCivil Procedure, particularly Rule 10, Section 2, provides that aparty may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any timebefore a responsive pleading is served, and Section 3, wheresubstantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court exceptunder the situation covered by Section 2. This also implies that anyamendment subsequent to the right to amend for the first time underSection 2, may only be done by leave of court.

It follows, therefore, that under the impeachment rules, the AmendedComplaint against respondent President Macapagal-Arroyo is clearlyallowed. Petitioner further submits that the fact that PresidentArroyo already filed an answer does not help her case any because theRules of Civil Procedure have no application in an impeachmentproceeding.

The foregoing is not without precedent. Under the Rules onImpeachment adopted by the Batasang Pambansa on 7 December 1981, RuleII, Section 4 expressly provides that the amendment of an impeachmentcomplaint is clearly allowed, to wit:

“RULE II FILING OF COMPLAINT

SEC. 2. Filing of Complaint. – A complaint to impeachany of the officers mentioned in Section 1 hereof, may befiled by any citizen of the Philippines or by a Member ofthe Batasan.

xxx xxx

SEC. 3. Filing of Complaint by a Member of theBatasan. – When a complaint is filed by a Member of theBatasan, it shall be in form of a verified complaint or aresolution. xxx

xxx xxx

SEC 4. Amendment of Complaint. – The complainant mayamend his complaint as a matter of course at any timebefore receipt of the referral by the Committee on Justice,Human Rights and Good Government. Thereafter, by leave ofthe Committee and upon reasonable notice to the other partyor parties and upon such terms as are just, the complainantmay amend the complaint so as to set forth therein facts,events and occurrences brought to his attention and/ordiscovered by him subsequent to the filing of the complaintsought to be amended.

xxx xxx” (underscoring supplied)

10

Under the foregoing rule, the complainant may amend his complaintas a matter of course at any time before receipt of the referral bythe Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government.Thereafter, by leave of the Committee and upon reasonable notice tothe other party or parties and upon such terms as are just, thecomplainant may amend the complaint so as to set forth therein facts,events and occurrences brought to his attention and/or discovered byhim subsequent to the filing of the complaint sought to be amended.

In the impeachment proceeding before the Committee on Justice,the Amended Complaint was filed on 25 July 2005 at 9:30 o’clock in themorning.2 The letter-transmittal dated 26 July 2005 issued by DeputySecretary General Artemio A. Adasa, Jr.,3 states that the said AmendedComplaint was referred by Secretary De Venecia to the Committee onJustice on 25 July 2005. The said letter-transmittal also shows thatthe Amended Complaint was received by the Committee on Justice on 26July 2005 at 4:20 o’clock in the afternoon. Quite clearly, theamendment of the original Complaint took place before its referral tothe Committee on Justice.

Moreover, Rule III, Section 7 of the Rules on Impeachment of theBatasang Pambansa further provides thus:

“xxx xxx SEC. 7. Report of Committee. – When the Committee on

Justice, Human Rights and Good Government, after dueconsideration of the records, determines that the factsalleged in the charge or charges probably constitute aground for impeachment under the Constitution, it shallsubmit a Resolution setting forth the Articles ofImpeachment.

The committee, in submitting a resolution settingforth the Articles of Impeachment to the Batasan, mayinclude additional charges/or grounds to, or drop any ofthe charges and/or grounds from, those contained in thecomplaint for impeachment, as the facts and evidence maywarrant.

The Steering Committee shall calendar the Resolutionfor consideration by the Batasan within ten (10) sessiondays from receipt of the Report of the Committee onJustice, Human Rights and Good Government.

xxx xxx” (underscoring supplied)

Under the foregoing provision, it is further expressly providedthat the Committee, in submitting a resolution setting forth theArticles of Impeachment to the Batasan, may include additionalcharges/or grounds to, or drop any of the charges and/or grounds from,those contained in the complaint for impeachment, as the facts andevidence may warrant.

However, respondent Committee on Justice, acting in excess of itsjurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion, barred the AmendedComplaint. This violates Article XI, Sections 1, 2 and (3) (2) whichguarantees the right to file an impeachment complaint against animpeachable official, thus:

“ARTICLE XIACCOUNTABILITTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Publicofficers and employees must at all times be accountable to

2 Annex “P”.3 Annex “V”.

11

the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism andjustice, and lead modest lives.

SECTION 2. The President, Vice-President, the Membersof the Supreme Court, the Members of the ConstitutionalCommissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office,on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violatio ofthe Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption,other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All otherpublic officers and employees be removed from office asprovided by law, but not by impeachment.

SECTION 3. xxx xxx

(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filedby any Member of the House of Representatives or by anycitizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Memberthereof, which shall be included in the Order of Businesswithin ten session days, and referred to the properCommittee within three session days thereafter. TheCommittee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all itsMembers, shall submit its report to the House within sixtysession days from such referral, together with thecorresponding resolution. The resolution shall becalendared for consideration by the House within tensession days from receipt thereof.

xxx xxx”

II. In the alternative, the House ofRepresentatives acted in excess of itsjurisdiction and with grave abuse ofdiscretion in adopting Rule II,Section 2 of the Rules on Impeachment,in violation of Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Philippine Constitution. -----------------------------

12

Petitioner respectfully submits that the ruling in Francisco vs. Houseof Representatives needs to be re-examined this early in the light ofrecent developments. The ruling that an impeachment proceeding isdeemed initiated by the mere filing of an impeachment complaint andits referral to the Committee on Justice is clearly susceptible ofabuse and will effectively shield a corrupt, impeachable official fromimpeachment. This is because all that an impeachable official needsto do to avoid being impeached is to yearly ask somebody to file asham impeachment complaint or a complaint which can easily be declaredinsufficient in form and substance and have it endorsed by an ally-representative. Consequently, said official will always be immunefrom impeachment by virtue of the one (1)-year bar rule under ArticleXI, Section 3 (5) of the Philippine Constitution.

Without casting aspersion on Atty. Lozano, who, under thecircumstances, may have faced certain constraints in filing theoriginal Complaint, what is happening in the present impeachmentproceeding against respondent President Macapagal-Arroyo indicatesthat the foregoing scenario is possible. Without the AmendedComplaint, the Committee on Justice would have no difficulty rulingthat the original Complaint is insufficient in form and substance.

First, the original Complaint was not verified; it was merely sworn.Second, at the time the original Complaint was filed on 27 June 2005,it had no endorsement by a Member of the House. The Resolution ofEndorsement of Representative Marcoleta was filed only on or about 29June 2005 and even after Atty. Lozano had filed a SupplementalComplaint for Impeachment on 28 June 2005. Third, the form of theoriginal Complaint itself is foreign to the standard complaint oraffidavit-complaint prepared and used by lawyers. Fourth, theallegations or contents of the original Complaint may not be able tomeet the standard that the “requirement of sufficiency of substance ismet if there is a recital of facts constituting the offense chargedand determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee.” Finally,fifth, Atty. Lozano himself had to file a total of six (6) so-calledSupplemental Affidavit of Complaint for Impeachment in support of theoriginal Complaint for Impeachment and Supplemental Complaint forImpeachment. This fact alone speaks a lot about the insufficiency ofthe original Complaint filed by Atty. Lozano.

Moreover, there is a need for a re-examination of the ruling ofthe Honorable Court in Francisco vs. The House of Representativesbecause a careful examination of the proceedings and records of the1986 Constitutional Commission seems to show that while there was anintention on the part of the framers of the Constitution to limit thefiling of impeachment complaints, on the one hand, there was a resolveto maintain the initiation of an inpeachment proceeding as aprerogative of the House as a collective body, on the other. It is inthis light that Article XI, Section 3 (1) precisely provides that theHouse of Representatives shall have exclusive power to initiate allcases of impeachment. Of course, others would try to make adistinction between the words “proceeding” and “case” to justify theapplicability of the Francisco ruling.

The fact that the initiation of an impeachment proceeding is aprerogative of the House is very clear in the Rules on Impeachmentadopted by the Batasang Pambansa on 7 December 1981. Under the saidRules, there was a clear delineation between the filing of a complaintand the initiation of an impeachment proceeding. Rule II of the saidRules is captioned “Filing of Complaint,” while Rule III is captioned“Initiation of Impeachment Proceedings.”

Rule II of the Rules on Impeachment adopted by the BatasangPambansa captioned “Filing of Complaint” reads thus:

13

“RULE II FILING OF COMPLAINT

SEC. 2. Filing of Complaint. – A complaint to impeachany of the officers mentioned in Section 1 hereof, may befiled by any citizen of the Philippines or by a Member ofthe Batasan.

When a complaint is filed by a citizen of thePhilippines, it shall be subscribed and sworn to by him andfiled with the Office of the Speaker. Upon certificationby the Speaker that the complaint is in order, to be madewithin ten (10) days from its filing, it shall be includedin the Order of Business for referral to the Committee onJustice, Human Rights and Good Government within three (3)session days from such certification.

SEC. 3. Filing of Complaint by a Member of theBatasan. – When a complaint is filed by a Member of theBatasan, it shall be in form of a verified complaint or aresolution. The Secretary-General shall include theverified complaint or resolution in the Order of Businessfor referral to the Committee on Justice, Human Rights andGood Government within three (3) session days following itscertification or filing, as the case may be.

SEC 4. Amendment of Complaint. – The complainant mayamend his complaint as a matter of course at any timebefore receipt of the referral by the Committee on Justice,Human Rights and Good Government. Thereafter, by leave ofthe Committee and upon reasonable notice to the other partyor parties and upon such terms as are just, the complainantmay amend the complaint so as to set forth therein facts,events and occurrences brought to his attention and/ordiscovered by him subsequent to the filing of the complaintsought to be amended.

xxx xxx”

A copy of the Rules on Impeachment adopted by the BatasangPambansa on 7 December 1981 is attached hereto as Annex “W”.

Under Rule II captioned “Filing of Complaint” aforequoted, thefollowing are included in the process of filing a complaint by acitizen, to wit: (1) actual filing of a complaint; (2) thecertification by the Speaker that the complaint is in order, to bemade within ten (10) days from its filing; (3) its inclusion in theOrder of Business; and, (4) its referral to the Committee on Justice,Human Rights and Good Government within three (3) session days fromsuch certification.

On the other hand, in the case of filing of a complaint by aMember of the Batasan, the process of filing a complaint includes thefollowing, to wit: (1) actual filing of a complaint; (2) itsinclusion by the Secretary General in the Order of Business; and, (3)its referral to the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and GoodGovernment within three (3) session days following its certificationor filing.

On the other hand, Rule III of the Rules on Impeachment of theBatasang Pambansa captioned “Initiation of Impeachment Proceedings”reads thus:

“RULE III INITIATION OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS

14

SEC. 5. Period within which the Committee is tosubmit report. – The Committee on Justice, Human Rightsand Good Government shall submit its report to the Batasanwithin sixty (60) session days after the complaint orresolution for impeachment has been submitted to it forresolution.

SEC. 6. Determination of the legal sufficiency of theimpeachment charge/s. Upon receipt of the verifiedcomplaint or resolution for impeachment, the Committee onJustice, Human Rights and Good Government shall immediatelyconsider the same and determine whether the facts allegedin each and every charge constitute a legal ground forimpeachment under the Constitution.

Should the parties then agree on certain facts allegedin the complaint or resolution for impeachment and/or thefacts pleaded by the respondent in his defense, theCommittee shall require the parties to file a stipulationof facts to be entitled “Document of Mutual Admissions.”Thereafter, the parties shall be given the opportunity topresent evidence in support of their respective positionson the controverted facts. Upon request of the parties oranyone of them or upon its own initiative, the Committeeshall issue subpoena to compel attendance of witnessesand/or subpoena duces tecum requiring them to bring anybooks, documents or other records under their control.

Should the Committee deem it necessary, both partiesmay submit memoranda which may further be supplemented byoral arguments.

In the case of a resolution of impeachment filed by atleast one-fifth (1/5) of all the Members of the Batasan,the Committee shall determine merely whether the resolutionis in order and shall thereafter report out a resolutionsetting forth the Article of Impeachment in accordance withSection 4 hereof.

SEC. 7. Report of Committee. – When the Committee onJustice, Human Rights and Good Government, after dueconsideration of the records, determines that the factsalleged in the charge or charges probably constitute aground for impeachment under the Constitution, it shallsubmit a Resolution setting forth the Articles ofImpeachment.

The committee, in submitting a resolution settingforth the Articles of Impeachment to the Batasan, mayinclude additional charges/or grounds to, or drop any ofthe charges and/or grounds from, those contained in thecomplaint for impeachment, as the facts and evidence maywarrant.

The Steering Committee shall calendar the Resolutionfor consideration by the Batasan within ten (10) sessiondays from receipt of the Report of the Committee onJustice, Human Rights and Good Government.

Should the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and GoodGovernment, however, find that there is no prima facieevidence to warrant initiation of impeachment proceedings,it shall likewise render a report to the Batasan settingfroth its findings and conclusions and rejecting the

15

charge/s. Before the report is sent to the archives, anymember of the Batasan may make his comments thereon. Thesending to the archives of such rejection shall be withoutprejudice to the archives of such rejection shall bewithout prejudice to the filing of a resolution based onthe same charge/s by at least one-fifth (1/5) of all theMembers of the Batasan which shall then operate as anaffirmative initial voting as provided for in Section 8hereof.

SEC. 8. Initial voting. – A vote of at least one-fifth (1/5) of all the Members of the Batasan in favor ofthe resolution of impeachment presented by the Committee onJustice, Human Rights and Good Government shall benecessary for the impeachment trial to proceed. In thevoting, the Secretary-General shall call the roll andrecord the vote of each Member.

xxx xxx”It is clear from Rule III captioned “Initiation of Impeachment

Proceedings” aforequoted that the initiation of an impeachmentproceeding takes place not by the mere filing of a complaint and itsreferral to the Committee on Justice but, rather, upon the collectiveaction of the Batasang Pambansa.

Thus, the initiation process includes the following: (1) thedetermination of the legal sufficiency of the impeachment charge bythe Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government bydetermining whether the facts alleged in each and every chargeconstitute a legal ground for impeachment under the Constitution; (2)possible stipulation of facts by the parties; (3) the presentation ofevidence by the parties in support of their respective positions onthe controverted facts which may include issuance of subpoena andcompulsion of attendance of witnesses; (4) submission of memoranda andpossible conduct of oral arguments; (5) the submission of the reportof the Committee to the Batasan within sixty (60) session days afterthe complaint or resolution for impeachment has been submitted to itfor resolution. In case the Committee, after due consideration of therecords, determines that the facts alleged in the charge or chargesprobably constitute a ground for impeachment under the Constitution,it shall submit a Resolution setting forth the Articles ofImpeachment; (6) should the Committee find that there is no primafacie evidence to warrant initiation of impeachment proceedings, itshall likewise render a report to the Batasan setting forth itsfindings and conclusions and rejecting the charge. Before the reportis sent to the archives, any member of the Batasan may make hiscomments thereon. Also, the sending to the archives of such rejectionshall be without prejudice to the archives of such rejection shall bewithout prejudice to the filing of a resolution based on the samecharge/s by at least one-fifth (1/5) of all the Members of the Batasanwhich shall then operate as an affirmative initial voting underSection 8; and, (7) the inclusion of the Resolution of the Committeein the calendar by the Steering Committee for consideration by theBatasan within ten (10) session days from receipt of the committeereport.

However, in case of a resolution of impeachment filed by at leastone-fifth (1/5) of all the Members of the Batasan, the determinationby the Committee of whether the resolution is in order and thereporting out of a resolution setting forth the Article ofImpeachment.

Moreover, it is further provided that a vote of at least one-fifth (1/5) of all the Members of the Batasan in favor of theresolution of impeachment presented by the Committee on Justice, Human

16

Rights and Good Government shall be necessary for the impeachmenttrial to proceed.

Furthermore, a review of the records of the ConstitutionalCommission which framed the 1987 Constitution will show that it wasthe intent of the framers of the Constitution to keep with the Houseof Representatives as a collective body the power of initiating animpeachment proceeding. The records, in pertinent parts, read thus:

“xxx xxxSPONSORSHIP SPEECHOF COMMISSIONER MONSOD

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the Committee onAccountability of Public Officers is respectfullysubmitting its proposed Article in the Constitution, and wewould just want to make a few remarks on the articles andsections that we have included.

“Section 1. Public office is a public trust.” Wehave amended the 1973 provision in order to incorporate theresolution of Commissioner Tadeo to invest public officewith more than just the normal requirements of fidelity,integrity and efficiency, but also as an example of modestlives or simplified lifestyle.

With respect to the section on impeachment, we wouldlike the honorable Commissioners to note the inclusion ofthe Ombudsman among the offices that are subject toimpeachment, and the addition of betrayal of public trustas a ground for impeachment. This is derived from aresolution of Commissioner de los Reyes. In the section onthe procedure for impeachment, we were benefited by thesuggestions and advice of the honorable President of theCommission. The principal author of this section isCommissioner Romulo. What we seek to institute here is amore liberal interpretation of the impeachment proceduresin order to avoid, for example, the deadlock which happenedin the last Batasan. While incorporating the proceduresarising from the bicameral nature of the futurelegislation, the body will note that we provided here thata majority of the Members of the House can initiateimpeachment upon vote. But what is important is that anyMember of the House or any citizen can file a verifiedcomplaint. We used the majority rule of the House,although in 1973 the provision was for 20 percent of theMembers of the National Assembly. In that case since itwas unicameral, the trying body was also the NationalAssembly.

In the 1935 Constitution, the rule was two-thirds ofthe House may initiate impeachment proceedings and three-fourths of the Senate shall convict. However, in ourproposal, majority of the Members of the House may initiateand two-thirds of the Senate shall convict. This is onesection on which we would like to consult with the Membersof this body. This is a very important provision, and wewould be advised by the consultations and wisdom of thisbody with respect to this provision, particularly on thenumbers and vote necessary to initiate, to try or toconvict.

xxx xxx

MR. REGALADO. On Section 3 (2), of course, withoutprejudice later to our discussing what should be the

17

required number of votes for the filing of the articles ofimpeachment for which under the 1935 Constitution, a two-thirds vote was required and under the 1973 Constitution, aone-fifth vote was required, perhaps later we may come to ahappy compromise. But I notice the first sentence ofSection 3 (2) says:

A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed byany of its Members or by a citizen which shall be referredto the proper committee of the House for investigation andreport.

I suggest that the Committee should also considerwithin what time that report should be submitted because itcould be frozen in the Committee.

xxx xxx

MR. DAVIDE. So the thrust of the report is really torelax impeachment as a process. I notice, however, thatthe proposal now requires a majority vote of all themembers of the House to initiate impeachment, while thepresent constitutional provision requires only a vote ofone-fifth of the Members. The provision of the 1935Constitution is also one-fifth vote of the Members. Whydid we increase it to a majority vote of all the Members,if the idea is to relax impeachment? Does not theCommittee realize that we will now have a House ofRepresentatives with a membership will be 226, yet one-fifth would only be 50. So if we are going to relaximpeachment, we should retain the one-fifth requirement toinitiate impeachment and, perhaps, even reduce therequirement for conviction.

MR. MONSOD. If we will recall, during thesponsorship, we precisely said that this is a matter thatwe would like very much to be discussed on the door,because there is a very delicate balancing here of theright to demand accountability with the right of thegovernment to a certain amount of stability and freedomfrom harassment.

MR. NOLLEDO. That is correct.

MR. MONSOD. And we would like very much to be advisedby the body on this. We were looking at the past where, inthe 1973 Constitution, a vote of 20 percent of themembership of the House and, in the 1935 Constitution, avote of two-thirds of the membership of the House wererequired to initiate impeachment proceedings.

MR. DAVIDE. That is for conviction, but not forinitiation. Initiation of impeachment proceedings stillrequires a vote of one-fifth of the membership of the Houseunder the 1935 Constitution.

MR. MONSOD. A two-thirds vote of the membership ofthe House is required to initiate proceedings.

MR. DAVIDE. No for initiation of impeachmentproceedings, only one-fifth vote of the membership of theHouse is required; for conviction, a two-thirds vote of themembership is required.

MR. MONSOD. For conviction, it is three-fourths voteof the Senate, Madam President.

18

MR. DAVIDE. I see.

MR. ROMULO. No, it is two-thirds vote.

MR. DAVIDE. Here we now recognize the right of everycitizen and a Member of the Lower House to file acomplaint. However, the proposal would require a referralof the complaint to a committee. Would it not make theprocess rigorous because the committee can kill theproposal? Suppose the committee now votes against theimpeachment complaint, may one-fifth or majority of theMembers of the National Assembly overturn the rejection bythe committee?

MR. ROMULO. Yes, Madam President. These are thepoints that we would like to be discussed.

MR. DAVIDE. However, if we will allow one-fifth ofthe membership of the legislature to overturn a report ofthe committee, we have here Section 3 (4) which reads:

No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated againstthe same official more than once within a period of oneyear.

So, necessarily, under this particular subsection, wewill, in effect, disallow one-fifth of the Members of theNational Assembly to revive an impeachment move by anindividual or an ordinary Member.

MR. ROMULO. Yes. May I say that Section 3 (4) isthere to look towards the possibility of a very liberalimpeachment proceeding. Second, we were ourselvesstruggling with that problem where we are faced with just averified complaint rather than the signatures of one-fifth,or whatever it is we decide, of the Members of the House.So whether to put a period for the Committee to report,whether we should not allow the Committee to overrule amere verified complaint are some of the questions we wouldlike to be discussed.

MR. DAVIDE. We can probably overrule a rejection bythe Committee by providing that it can be overturned by,say, one-half or a majority, or one-fifth of the members ofthe legislature, and that such overturning will not amountto a refiling which is prohibited under Section 3 (4).

Another point. Madam President. May the Committee,taking into account evidence obtained in the course of theinvestigation of a charge for impeachment, and othergrounds for impeachment?

MR. ROMULO. That is not prohibited per se in ourproposal, and again we are willing to consider that.

MR. DAVIDE. Another question. Suppose thecommittee’s report is a rejection, under the proposal it isnot very clear whether the overturning of that report canbe done by the legislature. Does it mean that such areport shall have to be archived if it is a rejection?

MR. ROMULO. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. In other words, no Member of the LowerHouse can even comment on the report?

MR. ROMULO. That is not contemplated here.

19

xxx xxx

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.

MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, I would just like toask the Committee three questions.

On Section 3, page 2, lines 12 to 14, the lastparagraph reads as follows: “No impeachment proceedingsshall be initiated against the same official more than oncewithin a period of one year.” Does this mean that even ifan evidence is discovered to support another charge orground for impeachment, a second or subsequent proceedingcannot be initiated? The intention may be to protect thepublic official from undue harassment. On the other hand,is this not undue limitation on the accountability ofpublic officers? Anyway, when a person accepts a publictrust, does he not consider taking the risk of accountingfor his acts or misfeasance in office?

MR. ROMULO. Yes, the intention here really is tolimit. This is not only to protect public officials who,in this case, are of the highest category from harassmentbut also to allow the legislative body to do its work whichis lawmaking. Impeachment proceedings take a lot of time.And if we allow multiple impeachment charges on the sameindividual to take place, the legislature will do nothingelse but that.

xxx xxx

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Treñas is recognized.

MR. TREÑAS. Madam President, may I just ask a fewquestions of the Committee for clarification.

According to Section 3, subparagraph 2, after acomplaint for impeachment is filed, it is referred to theproper committee of the House for investigation and report.My question now is: If after the investigation and report,notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence in support of thecomplaint for impeachment and taking into account politicalconsideration, especially if it is an impeachment againstthe President and the House is controlled by his party, andnecessarily the committee also, it is also, it isdismissed, the complaint is already denied. Am I right?

MR. ROMULO. Yes, that is right.

MR. TREÑAS. Will the person who filed the impeachmenthave any remedy in view of the overwhelming evidence andthe fact that the committee acted in a capricious andwhimsical manner?

MR. ROMULO. Under this proposal, the answer must be“no” that is why I think Commissioner Davide has someamendments in mind to cure these gaps in the procedure.

MR. TREÑAS. May it not be subject of judicial review?

MR. ROMULO. As the Commissioner know, in thedefinition of judicial power, one might be able secure areview by certiorari. For that is not an expeditionsremedy. So we are open to suggestion.

20

xxx xxx”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas). The Chairman ofthe Committee is recognized.

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, we are acceptingthe amendment of Commissioner Regalado.

MR. NATIVIDAD. May we have the amendment statedagain, so we can understand it. Will the proponent pleasestate the amendment before we vote?

MR. REGALADO. The amendment is on Section 3 (3) whichshall read as follows: A VOTE OF AT LEAST ONE-THIRD OF ALLTHE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE SHALL BE NECESSARY TO INITIATEIMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, EITHER TO AFFIRM A RESOLUTION OFIMPEACHMENT BY THE COMMITTEE OR TO OVERRIDE ITS CONTRARYRESOLUTION. THE VOTES OF EACH MEMBER SHALL BE RECORDED.

MR. NATIVIDAD. How many votes are needed to initiate?

MR. BENGZON. One-third.

MR. NATIVIDAD. To initiate is different from theimpeach; to impeach is different from to convict. Toimpeach means the case before the Senate.

MR. REGALADO. When we speak of “initiative,” we referhere to the Articles of Impeachment.

MR. NATIVIDAD. So, that is the impeachment itself,because when we impeach, we are charging him with theArticles of Impeachment. That is my understanding.

MR. BENGZON. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we requestthat Commissioner Maambong be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treñas). CommissionerMaambong is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG. Mr. Presiding Officer, I am not movingfor a reconsideration of the approval of the amendmentsubmitted by Commissioner Regalado , but I will just make of record my thinking that we do not really initiate thefiling of the Articles of Impeachment on the floor. Theprocedure, as I have pointed out earlier, was theinitiation starts with the filing of the complaint. Andwhat is actually done on the floor is that the committeeresolution containing the Articles of Impeachment is theone approved by the body.

As the phraseology now runs, which may be corrected bythe Committee on Style, it appears that the initiationstarts on the floor. If we only have time, I could cite examples in the case of the impeachment proceedings ofpresident Richard Nixon wherein the Committee on theJudiciary submitted the recommendation, the resolution, andthe Articles of Impeachment to the body, and it was thebody who approved the resolution. It is not the body whichinitiates it. It only approves or disapproves theresolution. So, on that score, probably the Committee onStyle could help rearranging these words because we have tobe very technical about this. I have been bringing with meThe Rules of the House of Representatives of the U.S.Congress. The Senate Rules are with me. The proceedingson the case of Richard Nixon are with me. I have submitted

21

my proposal, but the Committee has already decided.Nevertheless, I just want to indicate this on record.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

xxx xxx

MR. MAAMBONG, I would just like to move for areconsideration of the approval of Section 3 (3). Myreconsideration will not at all affect the substance, butit is only in keeping with the exact formulation of theRules of the House of Representatives of the United Statesregarding impeachment.

I am proposing, Madam President, without doing damageto any of this provision, that on page 2, Section 3 (3),from lines 17 to 18, we delete the words which read: “toinitiate impeachment proceedings” and the comma (,) andinsert on line 19 after the word “resolution” the phraseWITH THE ARTICLES, and then capitalize the letter “i” in“impeachment” and replace the word “by” with OF, so thatthe whole section will now read: “A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessaryeither to affirm a resolution WITH THE ARTICLES ofImpeachment of the Committee or to override its contraryresolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.”

I already mentioned earlier yesterday that theinitiation, as far as the House of Representatives of theUnited States is concerned, really starts from the filingof the verified complaint and every resolution to impeachalways carried with it the Articles of Impeachment. As amatter of fact, the words “Articles of Impeachment” arementioned on line 25 in the case of the direct filing of averified complaint of one-third of all the Members of theHouse. I will mention again, Madam President, that my amendment will not vary the substance in any way. It isonly in keeping with the uniform procedure of the House ofRepresentatives of the United States Congress. Thank you,Madam President. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

What is very striking in the foregoing is the statement ofCommissioner Maambong that he was “not moving for a reconsideration ofthe approval of the amendment submitted by Commissioner Regalado” andthat he was just making of record his thinking that the House does notreally initiate the filing of the Articles of Impeachment on the floorand that the procedure was that the initiation starts with the filingof the complaint. He further stated that “as the phraseology nowruns, which may be corrected by the Committee on Style, it appearsthat the initiation starts on the floor.”

Commissioner Maambong further stated that while he has submittedhis proposal, the Committee has already decided and that he justwanted to indicate such fact on record. Finally, he said that whilehe was moving for a reconsideration of the approval of Section 3 (3),such “reconsideration will not at all affect the substance, but it isonly in keeping with the exact formulation of the Rules of the Houseof Representatives of the United States regarding impeachment.”

Commissioner Maambong further added that he was proposing,“without doing damage to any of this provision,” to delete the wordswhich read: “to initiate impeachment proceedings” and the comma (,)and insert on line 19 after the word “resolution” the phrase WITH THE

22

ARTICLES, and then capitalize the letter “i” in “impeachment” andreplace the word “by” with OF, so that the whole section will nowread: “A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the Houseshall be necessary either to affirm a resolution WITH THE ARTICLES ofImpeachment of the Committee or to override its contrary resolution.The vote of each Member shall be recorded.”

In closing, Commissioner Maambong again assured everyone “that(his) amendment will not vary the substance in any way” and that “(i)tis only in keeping with the uniform procedure of the House ofRepresentatives of the United States Congress.”

However, despite Commissioner Maambong’s repeated reference tothe impeachment rules of the United States Congress, what is not clearis whether or not the impeachment procedure of the United StatesCongress also allows the filing of an impeachment complaint by acitizen and whether or not such filing alone will result in theinitiation of an impeachment proceeding. What is clear though is thatthere is no statement or claim on the part of Commissioner Maambong onrecord that the impeachment rules of the Philippine Congress are thesame as the impeachment rules of the United States Congress in allrespects.

The Honorable Court, with all due respect, in resolving the issueof when impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated in Francisco vs.The House of Representatives, zeroed in on the pronouncements ofCommissioner Maambong only, to wit:

“xxx xxx

The resolution of this issue thus hinges on theinterpretation of the term “initiate.” Resort to statutoryconstruction is, therefore, in order.

That the sponsor of the provision of Section 3(5) ofthe Constitution, Commissioner Florenz Regalado, whoeventually became an Associate Justice of this Court,agreed on the meaning of “initiate” as “to file,” asproffered and explained by Constitutional CommissionerMaambong during the Constitutional Commission proceedings,which he (Commissioner Regalado) as amicus curiae affirmedduring the oral arguments on the instant petitioners heldon November 5, 2003 at which he added that the act of“initiating” included the act of taking initial action onthe complaint, dissipates any doubt that indeed the word“initiate” as it twice appears in Article XI (3) and (5) ofthe Constitution means to file the complaint and takeinitial action on it.

xxx xxx

As stated earlier, one of the means of interpretingthe Constitution is looking into the intent of the law.Fortunately, the intent of the framers of the 1987Constitution can be pried from its records:

MR. MAAMBONG. With reference to Section 3,regarding the procedure and the substantiveprovisions on impeachment, I understand therehave been many proposals and, I think, thesewould need some time for Committee action.

However, I would just like to indicate thatI submitted to the Committee a resolution onimpeachment proceedings, copies of which havebeen furnished the Members of this body. This is

23

borne out of my experience as a member of theCommittee on Justice, Human Rights and GoodGovernment which took charge of the lastimpeachment resolution filed before the FirstBatasang Pambansa. For the information of theCommittee, the resolution covers several steps inthe impeachment proceedings starting withinitiation, action of the Speaker committeeaction, calendaring of report, voting on thereport, transmittal referral to the Senate, trialand judgment by the Senate.

xxx xxx

MR. MAAMBONG, Mr. Presiding Officer, I amnot moving for a reconsideration of the approvalof the amendment submitted by CommissionerRegalado, but I will just make a record mythinking that we do not really initiate thefiling of the Articles of Impeachment on thefloor. The procedure, as I have pointed outearlier, was that the initiation starts with thefiling of the complaint. And what is actuallydone on the floor is that the committeeresolution containing the Articles of Impeachmentis the one approved by the body.

As the phraseology now runs, which may becorrected by the Committee on Style, it appearsthat the initiation starts on the floor. If weonly have time, I could cite examples in the caseof the impeachment proceedings of PresidentRichard Nixon wherein the Committee on theJudiciary submitted the recommendation, theresolution, and the Articles of Impeachment tothe body, and it was the body who approved theresolution. It is not the body which initiatesit. It only approves or disapproves theresolution. So, on that score, probably theCommittee on Style could help in rearrangingthese words because we have to be very technicalabout this. I have been bring with me The Rulesof the House of Representatives of the U.S.Congress. The Senate Rules are with me. Theproceedings on the case of Richard Nixon are withme. I have submitted my proposal, but theCommittee has already decided. Nevertheless, Ijust want to indicate this on record.

xxx xxx

MR. MAAMBONG, I would just like to move fora reconsideration of the approval of Section 3(3). My reconsideration will not at all affectthe substance, but it is only in keeping with theexact formulation of the Rules of the House ofRepresentatives of the United States regardingimpeachment.

I am proposing, Madam President, withoutdoing damage to any of this provision, that onpage 2, Section 3 (3), from lines 17 to 18, wedelete the words which read: “to initiateimpeachment proceedings” and the comma (,) andinsert on line 19 after the word “resolution” thephrase WITH THE ARTICLES, and then capitalize the

24

letter “i” in “impeachment” and replace the word“by” with OF, so that the whole section will nowread: “A vote of at least one-third of all theMembers of the House shall be necessary either toaffirm a resolution WITH THE ARTICLES ofImpeachment of the Committee or to override itscontrary resolution. The vote of each Membershall be recorded.”

I already mentioned earlier yesterday thatthe initiation, as far as the House ofRepresentatives of the United States isconcerned, really starts from the filing of theverified complaint and every resolution toimpeach always carried with it the Articles ofImpeachment. As a matter of fact, the words“Articles of Impeachment” are mentioned on line25 in the case of the direct filing of a verifiedcomplaint of one-third of all the Members of theHouse. I will mention again, Madam President,that my amendment will not vary the substance inany way. It is only in keeping with the uniformprocedure of the House of Representatives of theUnited States Congress. Thank you, MadamPresident. (Italic in the original; emphasis andunderscoring supplied)

This amendment proposed by Commissioner Maambong wasclarified and accepted by the Committee on theAccountability of Public Officers.

xxx xxx

From the records of the Constitutional Commission, tothe amicus curiae briefs of two former ConstitutionalCommissioners, it is without a doubt that the term “toinitiate” refers to the filing of the impeachment complaintcoupled with Congress’ taking initial action of saidcomplaint.

Having concluded that the initiation takes place bythe act of filing and referral or endorsement of theimpeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or,by the filing by at least one-third of the members of theHouse of Representatives with the Secretary General of theHouse, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomesclear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated,another impeachment complaint may not be filed against thesame official within a one year period.

xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, Sections 16 and 17 of the Rule V of theRules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which wereapproved by the House of Representatives on November 28,2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the secondimpeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G.Davide, Jr. which was file by Representatives Gilberto C.Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with theOffice of the Secretary General of the House ofRepresentatives on October 23, 2003 is barred underparagraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the constitution.

xxx xxx”

25

Accordingly, respondent House of Representatives, in adopting Rule II,Section of 2 of the Rules on Impeachment of the 11th Congress, actedin excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion inviolation of Article XI, Section 3 (5) of the Philippine Constitution.

III. The House of Representatives acted inexcess of its jurisdiction and withgrave abuse of discretion in adoptingRule II, Sections 4, 5 and 6, in theprocess depriving an ordinary citizenof his right to file an impeachmentcomplaint and to be heard and provehis charges before the Committee onJustice makes a determination onwhether or not his complaint issufficient in substance. -----------------------------

Rule II, Sections 4, 5 and 6, of the Rules on Impeachment of the 11thCongress, as adopted by the 13th Congress, provides thus:

“xxx xxx

Section 4. Determination of Sufficiency in Form andSubstance. – Upon due referral, the Committee on Justiceshall determine whether the complaint is sufficient in formand substance. If the committee finds that the complaintis not sufficient in form, it shall return the same to theSecretary General within three (3) session days fromreceipt of the committee resolution finding the complaintinsufficient in form.

Should the committee find the complaint sufficient inform, it shall proceed to determine if the complaint issufficient in substance. The requirement of sufficiency ofsubstance is met if there is a recital of factsconstituting the offense charged and determinative of thejurisdiction of the committee. If the committee finds thatthe complaint is not sufficient in substance, it shalldismiss the complaint and shall submit its report asprovided hereunder.

The requirement of sufficiency of substance is met ifthere is a recital of facts constituting the offensecharged and determinative of the jurisdiction of thecommittee.

If the committee finds that the complaint is notsufficient in substance, it shall dismiss the complaint andshall submit its report as provided hereunder.

Section 5. Notice to Respondent and Time to Plead. –If the committee finds the complaint sufficient in form andsubstance, it shall immediately furnish the respondent witha copy of the resolution and/or verified complaint, as thecase may be, with written notice that he shall answer thecomplaint within ten (10) days from receipt of noticethereof and serve a copy of the answer to the complainantor complainants. No motion to dismiss shall be allowedwithin the period to answer the complaint.

The answer, which shall be under oath, may includeaffirmative defenses. If the respondent fails or refusesto file an answer within the reglamentary period, a generaldenial of the complaint is deemed to have been interposed.

26

Within three (3) days from receipt of the answer, thecomplainant may file a reply, serving a copy thereof to therespondent who may file a rejoinder within three (3) daysfrom receipt of the reply, serving a copy thereof to thecomplainant or complainants. If the complainant fails tofile a reply, all the material allegations in the answerare deemed controverted. Together with their pleadings,the parties shall file their affidavits or counter-affidavits, as the case may be, with their documentaryevidence. Such affidavits or counter-affidavits shall besubscribed before the chairman of the Committee on Justiceor the Secretary General. Notwithstanding all theforegoing, failure of any respondent to file an answer willnot preclude him from presenting evidence in support of hisdefenses.

When there are more than one respondent, each shall befurnished with a copy of the verified complaint from amember of the House or a copy of the verified complaintfrom a private citizen together with the resolution ofendorsement by a member of the House of Representatives anda written notice to answer and in that case, reference torespondent in these Rules shall be understood asrespondents.

Section 6. Submission of Evidence and Memoranda. –After receipt of the pleadings, affidavits, counter-affidavits and other relevant documents provided for inSection 5, or the expiration of the time within which theymay be filed, the Committee shall determine whether thecomplaint alleges sufficient grounds for impeachment.

If it finds that sufficient grounds for impeachment dono exist, the Committee shall dismiss the complaint andsubmit the report required hereunder. If the Committeefinds that sufficient grounds for impeachment exists, theCommittee shall conduct a hearing. To that end, theCommittee, through the chairman, may limit the period ofexamination and cross-examination. The Committee shallhave the power to issue compulsory processes for theattendance of witnesses as well as the production ofdocuments and other related evidence.

The hearing before the Committee shall be open to thepublic except when the security of the State or publicinterest requires that the hearing be held in executivesession.

After the submission of evidence, the Committee mayrequire the submission of memoranda, after which the mattershall be submitted for resolution.

xxx xxx”

Rule II, Sections 4, 5 and 6 aforequoted means that the Committee onJustice may dismiss a complaint for impeachment without firstconducting a hearing. In the process, the complainant is deprived ofthe opportunity to be heard and prove his charges against animpeachable official. Under the foregoing rules, the hearing andinvestigation will take place only after the Committee on Justice hasdetermined that the complaint is sufficient in form and substance.

Unfortunately, the determination of sufficiency in form andsubstance has repeatedly been used by members of the House to thwartvalid impeachment complaints against an impeachable official.Petitioner respectfully submits that this practice has to be stopped

27

because this violates the constitutional provisions which guaranteethe right to file an impeachment complaint against an impeachableoffical.

It must also be stressed that the determination of sufficiency inform and substance by the Committee on Justice is not provided for inthe Constitution. Moreover, Article XI, Section 3 (2) seems torequire a hearing in all cases, to wit:

“ARTICLE XI

ACCOUNTABILITTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

xxx xxx

SECTION 3. xxx xxx

(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filedby any Member of the House of Representatives or by anycitizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Memberthereof, which shall be included in the Order of Businesswithin ten session days, and referred to the properCommittee within three session days thereafter. TheCommittee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all itsMembers, shall submit its report to the House within sixtysession days from such referral, together with thecorresponding resolution. The resolution shall becalendared for consideration by the House within tensession days from receipt thereof.” (underscoring supplied)

Moreover, it is relevant to point out that, by analogy, in bothcivil and criminal cases, the court or the investigating prosecutordoes not make a determination of sufficiency in form and substancebefore issuing summons or subpoena requiring the defendant orrespondent to file his answer or counter-affidavit.

Thus, the respondent House of Representative, in adopting Rule II,Sections 4, 5 and 6, of the Rules on Impeachment of the 11th Congress,acted in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretionand in violation of Article XI, Section 3 (2) of the PhilippineConstitution.

IV. Article XI, Section 3 (2) and (4) ofthe Philippine Constitution should beconstrued to mean that an impeachmentcomplaint does not have to be filed byone-third (1/3) of all the Members ofthe House at the time of filing for itto constitute the articles ofimpeachment and for trial in theSenate to forthwith proceed. -----------------------------Article XI, Section 3 (2), (4) of the Philippine Constitution

provides thus:

“ARTICLE XI

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

xxx xxx

SECTION 3. xxx xxx

28

(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filedby any Member of the House of Representatives or by anycitizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Memberthereof, which shall be included in the Order of Businesswithin ten session days, and referred to the properCommittee within three session days thereafter. TheCommittee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all itsMembers, shall submit its report to the House within sixtysession days from such referral, together with thecorresponding resolution. The resolution shall becalendared for consideration by the House within tensession days from receipt thereof.

xxx xxx

(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution ofimpeachment is filed by at least one-third of all theMembers of the House, the same shall constitute theArticles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shallforthwith proceed.

xxx xxx”

In the impeachment proceeding before the Committee on Justice,the original Complaint was filed on 27 June 2005. Thereafter, on 29June 2005, Representative Marcoleta filed a verified Resolution ofEndorsement. Later, on 14 July 2005, Representative Suplico alsofiled a Resolution of Endorsement which, however, does not indicate ifit was verified. On 25 July 2005, the Amended Complaint was filedwith twenty-eight (28) representatives as co-complainants. A JointVerification dated 23 July 2005 duly signed and subscribed by thetwenty-eight (28) representatives-co-complainants accompanied theAmended Complaint. The representatives supporting the AmendedComplaint are claiming that in due time, they would be able to musterat least one-third (1/3) of all the members of the House and, thus,have taken the position that upon reaching that number, the originalComplaint and Amended Complaint shall constitute the Articles ofImpeachment.

In Francisco vs. The House of Representatives, the foregoingissue was already raised. However, the Honorable Court refrained fromruling on the sadi issue. Petitioner respectfully submits that thereis a need for the Court to already address the foregoing issue in theinstant Petition. In Francisco, the Court stated thus:

“xxx xxxIn G.R. No. 160262, intervenors Romulo B. Macalintal

and Pete Quirino Quadra, while joining the originalpetition of petitioners Candelaria, et al., introduce thenew argument that since the second impeachment complaintwas verified and filed only by Representatives GilbertoTeodoro, Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella, the same doesnot fall under the provision of Section 3 (4), Article XIof the Constitution which reads:

Section 3(4) In case the verified or resolution ofimpeachment is filed by at least one-third of all theMembers of the House, the same shall constitute theArticles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shallforthwith proceed.

They assert that while at least 81 members of theHouse of Representatives signed a Resolution ofEndorsement/Impeachment, the same did not satisfy therequisites for the application of the aforementionedsection in that the “verified complaint or resolution of

29

impeachment” was not filed “by at least one-third of allthe Members of the House.” With the exception ofRepresentatives Teodoro and Fuentebella, the signatories tosaid Resolution are alleged to have verified the samemerely as a “Resolution of Endorsement.” Intervenors pointto the “Verification” of the Resolution of Endorsementwhich states that:

xxx xxx

Intervenors Macalintal and Quadra further claim thatwhat the Constitution requires in order for said secondimpeachment complaint to automatically become the Articlesof Impeachment and for trial in the Senate to begin“forthwith,” is that the verified complaint be “filed,” notmerely endorsed, by at least one-third of the Members ofthe House of Representatives. Not having complied withthis requirement, they concede that the second impeachmentcomplaint should have been calendared and referred to theHouse Committee on Justice under Section 3(3), Article XIof the Constitution, viz:

xxx xxx

Invervenors’ foregoing position is echoed by JusticeMaambong who opined that for Section 3(4), Article XI ofthe Constitution to apply, there should be 76 or morerepresentatives who signed and verified the secondimpeachment complaint as complainants, signed and verifiedthe signatories to a resolution of impeachment. JusticeMaambong likewise asserted that the Resolution ofEndorsement/Impeachment signed by at least one-third of themembers of the House of Representatives as endorsers is notthe resolution of impeachment contemplated by theConstitution, such resolution of endorsement beingnecessary only from at least one Member whenever a citizenfiles a verified impeachment complaint.

While the foregoing issue, as argued by intervenorsMacalintal and Quadra, does indeed limit the scope of theconstitutional issues to the provisions on impeachment,more compelling considerations militate against itsadoption as the lis mota or crux of the presentcontroversy. Chief among this the fact that only AttorneysMacalintal and Quadra, intervenors in G.r. No. 160262, haveraised this issue as a ground for invalidating the secondimpeachment complaint. Thus, to adopt this additionalground as the basis for deciding the instant consolidatedpetitioners would not only render for naught the efforts ofthe original petitioners in G.R. No. 160262, but theefforts presented by the other petitioners as well.

Again, the decision to discard the resolution of thisissue as unnecessary for the determination of the instantcases is made easier by the fact that said intervenorsMacalintal and Quadra have joined in the petition ofCandelaria, et al., adopting the latter’s arguments andissues as their own. Consequently, they are not undulyprejudiced by this Court’s decision.

xxx xxx”

Petitioner submits that Article XI, Section 3 (2), (4) of thePhilippine Constitution should be construed to mean that animpeachment complaint does not have to be filed by one-third of allthe Members of the House of Representatives at the time of its filing

30

for the said complaint to constitute as the articles of impeachmentand for trial in the Senate to forthwith proceeed, provided that therequirement of one-third (1/3) of all Members of the House issubsequently met.

ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

--------------------------------------------------

1. Petitioner repleads the foregoing paragraphs by reference.

2. The Committee on Justice acted in excess of itsjurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in barring the AmendedComplaint from the impeachment proceeding before respondents Committeeon Justice and House of Representatives, in blatant violation ofArticle XI, Sections 1, 2 and 3 (2) of the Philippine Constitutionwhich guarantees the right to file an impeachment complaint against animpeachable official.

3. In the national interest, respondents should not bepermited to bar the Amended Complaint from the impeachment proceedingby resorting to technicalities and making use of void andunconstitutional provisions of the House Rules on Impeachment, to thegrave and irreparable damage and prejudice of petitioner and theFilipino people.

4. The barring of the Amended Complaint from the impeachmentproceeding will surely result in the dismissal of the impeachmentcomplaint against respondent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.Without the Amended Complaint, the original Complaint will surely bedismissed for insufficiency in form and substance for the followingreasons:

First, the original Complaint filed by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano was notverified; it was merely sworn. Second, at the time the originalComplaint was filed on 27 June 2005, it had no endorsement by a Memberof the House. The Resolution of Endorsement of RepresentativeMarcoleta was filed only on or about 29 June 2005 and even after Atty.Lozano had filed a Supplemental Complaint for Impeachment on 28 June2005. Third, the form of the original Complaint itself is foreign tothe standard complaint or affidavit-complaint prepared and used bylawyers. Fourth, the allegations or contents of the originalComplaint may not be able to meet the standard that the “requirementof sufficiency of substance is met if there is a recital of factsconstituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdictionof the committee.” Finally, fifth, Atty. Lozano himself had to file atotal of six (6) so-called Supplemental Affidavit of Complaint forImpeachment in support of the original Complaint for Impeachment andSupplemental Complaint for Impeachment. This fact alone speaks a lotabout the insufficiency of the original Complaint filed by Atty.Lozano.

31

5. The barring of the Amended Complaint will result in an abuse ofthe consitutional process of impeachment and will create a terribleprecedent whereby an impeachable official is shielded from impeachmentby mere resort to technicalities. All that an impeachable officialneeds to do to avoid being impeached is to yearly ask somebody to filea sham impeachment complaint or a complaint which can easily bedeclared insufficient in form and substance and have it endorsed by anally-representative. Consequently, the said official will always beimmune from impeachment by virtue of the one (1)-year bar rule underArticle XI, Section 3 (5) of the Philippine Constitution.

6. The constitutional issues raised in the instant Petitionare of transcendental importance and will impact on the Filipinonation as a whole. The resolution of the instant Petition may alsoavert a possible consitutional crisis brought about by the abuse ofthe constitutional process of impeachment.

7. Thus, there is an urgent need for the Honorable Court torestrain the respondents and all others similarly situated from makinga travesty of the Philippine Constitution through an impeachmentproceeding which excludes and bars a valid impeachment complaint.

8. Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to an immediate reliefand the whole or part of said relief consists of restraining and/orenjoining the respondents from further actions and proceedings madeand are being made to bar and exclude the Amended Complaint in thepresent impeachment proceedings before the House of Representatives.

9. If respondents are not restrained, grave and irreparableinjury will be caused to petitioner and the Filipino nation as awhole.

10. Petitioner is ready, willing and able to post a veryminimal bond as the Honorable Court may determine in its discretionand considering the public interest involved, condition upon paymentof such damages which may be sustained by reasons of the issuance of awrit of preliminary injunction, in the event that this Honorable Courtshould finally decide that petitioner is not entitled to the reliefsprayed for.

P R A Y E RWHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that, upon the filing

of this Petition, a temporary restraining order and/or writ ofpreliminary injunction be issued restraining/enjoining respondentsfrom further actions and proceedings made and are being made to barand exclude the Amended Complaint in the present impeachmentproceedings before the Committee on Justice of the House ofRepresentatives.

It is further prayed of the Honorable Court that - 1. The instant Petition be given due course.

2. Rule II, Sections 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules on Impeachmentadopted by the 11th and 13th Congress of the House of Representatives,be declared unconstitutional.

3. Article XI, Section 3 (2) and (4) of the PhilippineConstitution be construed to mean that an impeachment complaint doesnot have to be filed by one-third of all the Members of the House ofRepresentatives at the time of its filing for the said complaint toconstitute as the articles of impeachment and for trial in the Senateto forthwith proceeed, provided that the requirement of one-third(1/3) of all Members of the House is subsequently met.

32

4. A writ of mandamus be issued directing respondents tocomply with the provisions of Article XI of the PhilippineConstitution and include the Amended Complaint in the impeachmentproceedings, and, further, for respondent House of Representatives tocomply with Article XI, Section 3 (8) likewise of the PhilippineConstitution, mandating that “Congress shall promulgate its rules onimpeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this Section(Article XI, Section 3),” meaning, rules on impeachment which areconsistent with and not violative of the Philippine Constitution.

5. Making the preliminary injunction permanent.Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.Makati City for the City of Manila, 31 August 2005.

FRANCISCO LAW OFFICEUnit 502 Liberty Building835 A. Arnaiz Avenue (Pasay Road)Legaspi Village, Makati City

By:

ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. PTR No. 8136848; Imus, Cavite; 12 Jan. 2005

IBP No. 633152; Cavite; 12 Jan. 2005 Roll of Attorneys’ No. 36540

COPY FURNISHED:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,represented by SPEAKER JOSE DE VENECIABatasan Complex, Batasan RoadDiliman, Quezon City

COMMITTEE OF JUSTICEHouse of Representatives represented by REP. SIMEON DATUMANONG Batasan Complex, Batasan RoadDiliman, Quezon City

PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYOOffice of the President Malacañang PalaceManila

EXPLANATIONCopies of this Petition will be served by registered mail to the

House of Representatives represented by Speaker Jose De Venecia, HouseCommittee on Justice represented by Rep. Simeon Datumanong, andPresident Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo due to time constraints and lack ofsufficient personnel to effect personal service.

ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.

33