ROMULO v YNIGUEZ
FACTS
Petitioners representing more than 1/5 of all members of the Batasan, filed Resolution No. 644, calling for the impeachment of President Marcos together with a verified complaint by impeachment. Said resolution and complaint were referred by the Speaker to the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government (CJHRGG). The committee found the complaint not sufficient in form and substance to warrant its further consideration and disapproved the Resolution 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. The next day, Mitra filed with the Batasan a motion praying for the recall from the archives of RN 644 and the verified complaint attached thereto. Said motion was disapproved by the Batasan. The present petition was then filed with the Court praying that pertinent provisions of the Batasan Rules granting power to the Batasan to determine whether an impeachment complaint is sufficient and its power to approve of deny such complaint be declared unconstitutional. They also pray that dismissal by the CJHRGG of RN 644 and the impeachment complaint attached thereto be declared null and void. It is the petitioner’s contention that said provisions of the Batasan Rules are unconstitutional because they amend Sec. 3 of Art XIII of the 1973 Constitution, without complying with the amendatory process provided in the Constitution. Further, the said provisions vest with the CJHRGG the power to decide whether to impeach or not, which should be decided by the Batasan as a collegiate body and not by a small body of the Batasan. They also content that the Batasan Rules impose 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 at least 1/5 of all the members of the Batasan for the initiation of impeachment proceedings.
ISSUEs
1. Does the Court have jurisdiction to order CJHRGG to recall from the Archives and report out the resolution and complaint for impeachment?
2. Can the Court, assuming that the resolution and complaint for impeachment are recalled from the Archives, order the Batasan to conduct a trial on the charges of the complaint?
3. Are the assailed provisions unconstitutional?
HELD
No, to all three counts. When the Batasan denied the motion of Mitra for the recall from the Archives of RN 644 and the complaint for impeachment, it, in effect, confirmed the action of the CJHRGG dismissing said complaint and resolution. The Constitution provides that no official shall be convicted without the concurrence of at least 2/3 votes of its members. In this case, a majority vote of all the members of the Batasan confirming the action of the CHRGG makes mathematically impossible the required vote for conviction of at least 2/3 of all the members. It would serve no purpose to proceed any further when it is obvious that the require 2/3 vote for conviction cannot be obtained. Dismissal of the impeachment proceedings would then be in order. A dismissal by the Batasan itself (as a body) of the resolution and complaint for impeachment – as in the dismissal of Mitra’s motion in the case – makes irrelevant under what authority the CJHRGG had acted. 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 the powers vested upon it by the Constitution beyond the power of the court to review. The court cannot compel the Batasan to conduct the impeachment trial prayed for by the petitioners. To order the CJHRGG to recall from the Archives the complaint and resolution would produce the effect of ordering the Batasan to proceed with the impeachments proceedings. This, the court cannot do. The assailed provisions are constitutional. The Batasan, pursuant to its powers to adopt rules of its proceeding, may adopt necessary rules of procedure to govern impeachment proceedings. The Batasan Rules of Procedure in impeachment cases providing for the dismissal of an impeachment complaint which is not sufficient in form and substance, or when sufficient grounds for impeachment do not exist, or probable cause has not been established, or requiring majority vote of all members of the Batasan for the approval of a resolution setting forth the Articles of Impeachment, are not inconsistent with Sec. 3 of Art. XIII of the 1973 Consti. Injunction cannot lie to restrain the enforcement of the particular provisions of the Rules (aside from the fact that the question involved is a political one), because the acts of the committee sought to be restrained had already been consummated. They are fait accompli.
