1.

In resolving the constitutionality of the Rules of Procedure for impeachment proceedings adopted by the 12th congress, two ambiguities arose. The term initiate under !ec. " #$%, &rt. II of the 1'() *onstitution. !uch term was called to be interpreted as it was confused with the term to file. To resolve such will the reveal the true meaning of the law. The term was interpreted according to its ordinary meaning and Ratio +egis et &nima or the intent of the law. ,urthermore, in !ec. " #1% and #$% two identical terms needs to be differentiated, to wit- #1% impeachment case and #2% impeachment proceeding. The seemingly conflict between the two rendered them ambiguous. In resolving such, the latin ma.im reddendo singuala sinuilis was used by the !upreme *ourt. 2. The meaning of the term initiate was interpreted according to its ordinary meaning and the intent of the law. &ccording to the supreme court, the term to initiate is understood by men to mean to begin, to commence or set going, as webster/s third new dictionary of the 0nglish language concisely puts to perform or facilitate the first action. 1y all means, an impeachment proceeding is not a single act. The beginning is the initiation of filing of complaint and its referral to the committee on 2ustice. The middle consists of deliberative moment reading to the formulation of the articles of impeachment. The end is the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to senate such intent of the framers of the 1'() *onstitution can be pried from its records, that the initiation starts with filing of the complaint. ". The !upreme *ourt has the 2urisdiction over the controversy. 3nder the 1'() *onstitution, &rticle (, !ection ", 4udiciary shall en2oy the fiscal autonomy. &ppropriates for the 2udiciary may not be reduced by the legislative below the amount appropriated for the previous year and after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. In this case, ratio legis shall be applied under the rules of statutory construction. The interpretation must be in accordance to its spirit, the second impeachment complaint initiated by 5ilbert Teodoro and ,eli. 6illiam ,uentebella against *hief 4ustice 7ilario 8avide is founded on the disbursement and e.penditures to the *hief 4ustice of the 4udiciary 8evelopment ,und. This serves to violate the fiscal autonomy enshrined in the *onstitution. This principle mandates that the 4udiciary has its own discretion to spend the funds allotted to them which is beyond the 4urisdiction of the 7ouse of Representatives. The !upreme *ourt has also the 4urisdiction to resolve the controversy involving the *onstitutionality of the second impeachment. 3nder section 1, of article ( of the 1'() *onstitution, states that The 4udicial Power shall be vested in one !upreme *ourt and in such lower courts as maybe established by law. In the case, verba legis must be applied under the rules of !tatutory *onstruction.