MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ - versus - THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE FACTS: On July 22, 2010, private respondents Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, et al. (Baraquel group) filed an impeachment complaint against petitioner based on betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. On August 3, 2010, private respondents Renato Reyes, Jr., et al. filed the second complaint based on the same offense. On August 11, 2010 at 4:47 p.m., during its plenary session, the House of Representatives simultaneously referred both complaints to public respondent. On September 13, 2010, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin the Committee on Justice from proceeding with the impeachment proceedings. The petition prayed for a temporary restraining order. The petitioner invoked the Courts expanded certiorari jurisdiction to "determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The public respondent contended that the petition is premature and not yet ripe for adjudication since petitioner has at her disposal a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of the proceedings before public respondent. Public respondent argues that when petitioner filed the present petition on September 13, 2010, it had not gone beyond the determination of of form and substance of the two complaints. Hence, certiorari is unavailing. The following day or on September 14, 2010, the Court En Banc RESOLVED to direct the issuance of a status quo ante order suspending the impeachment proceedings against petitioner. Section 3(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. 3(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not petition is premature and not yet ripe for adjudication. (2) Whether or not the simultaneous complaints violate the one-year bar rule. HELD: (First issue) The unusual act of simultaneously referring to public respondent two impeachment complaints presents a novel situation to invoke judicial power. Petitioner cannot thus be considered to have acted prematurely when she took the cue from the constitutional limitation that only one impeachment proceeding should be initiated against an impeachable officer within a period of one year. (Second issue) Article XI, Section 3, paragraph (5) of the Constitution reads: No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. However, the term initiate means to file the complaint and take initial action on it. The initiation starts with the filing of the complaint which must be accompanied with an action to set the complaint moving. It refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with Congress taking
initial action of said complaint. The initial action taken by the House on the complaint is the referral of the complaint to the Committee on Justice. Petition is DISMISSED.