You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

193459 February 15, 2011

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.

You might also like