G.R. No. 71908 February 4, 1986
Patajo, J.:
Facts:
1. Petitioners,
representing more than one-fifth of all members of the Batasan in 1985, filed
with the Batasan Resolution No. 644 and complaint calling for the impeachment
of President Marcos. Said resolution and complaint were referred by the Speaker
to the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government. The Committee
found the complaint not sufficient in form and substance to warrant its further
consideration and disapproved and dismissed all the charges contained in the
complaint attached. It then submitted its report which was duly noted by the
Batasan and sent to the archives.
2. On
August 14, 1985, MP Ramon V. Mitra filed with the Batasan a motion praying for
the recall from the archives of Resolution No. 644 and the verified complaint
attached thereto. Said motion was disapproved by the Batasan.
3.
Hence,
this petition for prohibition to restrain
respondents from enforcing Sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Batasan Rules of
Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings and mandamus to compel the Batasan
Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government to recall from the archives
and report out the resolution together with the verified complaint for the
impeachment of the President of the Philippines. Petitioner contend that
said provisions are unconstitutional because they amend Sec. 3 of Article XI I
of the 1973 Constitution, without complying with the mandatory amendatory
process provided for under Article XVI of the Constitution, by empowering a
smaller body to supplant and overrule the complaint to impeach endorsed by the requisite
1/5 of all the members of the Batasan Pambansa and that said questioned
provisions derail the impeachment proceedings at various stages by vesting the
Committee on Justice, etc. the power to impeach or not to impeach, when such
prerogative belongs solely to Batasan Pambansa as a collegiate body.
4.
Petitioners
further contend that Section 8 of the Rules is unconstitutional because it
imposes an unconstitutional and illegal condition precedent in order that the
complaint for impeachment can proceed to trial before the Batasan. By requiring
a majority vote of all the members of the Batasan for the approval of the
resolution setting forth the Articles of Impeachment, the Rules impose a
condition not required by the Constitution for all that Section 3, Article XIII
requires is the endorsement of at least one-fifth of all The members of the
Batasan for the initiation of impeachment proceedings or for the impeachment
trial to proceed.
5.
Respondents
Speaker and the Members of the Committee on Justice of the Batasan Pambansa contend
that that the petition should be dismissed because (1) it is a suit against the
Batasan itself over which this Court has no jurisdiction; (2) it raises
questions which are political in nature; (3) the Impeachment Rules are strictly
in consonance with the Constitution and even supposing without admitting that
the Rules are invalid, their invalidity would not nullify the dismissal of the
complaint for impeachment for the Batasan as a body sovereign within its own
sphere has the power to dismiss the impeachment complaint even without the
benefit of said Rules; and (4) the Court cannot by mandamus compel the Batasan
to give due course to the impeachment complaint.
ISSUE: Whether
or not the court can interfere with the Batasan’s power of impeachment
NO.
1. The
dismissal by the majority of the members of the Batasan of the impeachment
proceedings is an act of the Batasan as a body in the exercise of powers that
have been vested upon it by the Constitution beyond the power of this Court to
review. This Court cannot compel the Batasan to conduct the impeachment trial
prayed for by petitioners. A dismissal by the Batasan itself as a body of the
resolution and complaint for impeachment
makes irrelevant under what authority the Committee on Justice, Human
Rights and Good Government had acted.
2. Aside from the fact
that said Committee cannot recall from the Archives said resolution and
complaint for impeachment without revoking or rescinding the action of the
Batasan denying MP Mitra's motion for recall (which of course it had no
authority to do and, therefore, said Committee is in no position to comply with
any order from the Court for said recall) such an order addressed to the
Committee would actually be a direct order to the Batasan itself.
3. The Court held that if it has no authority to control the
Philippine Senate, then it does not have the authority to control the actions
of subordinate employees acting under the direction of the Senate. The
secretary, sergeant-at-arms, and disbursing officer of the Senate are mere
agents of the Senate who cannot act independently of the will of that body.
Should the Court do as requested, there will be the spectacle presented of the
court ordering the secretary, the sergeant-at-arms, and the disbursing officer
of the Philippine Senate to do one thing, and the Philippine Senate ordering
them to do another thing.
4. The
writ of mandamus should not be granted unless it clearly appears that the
person to whom it is directed has the absolute power to execute it.
No comments:
Post a Comment