ISSUE% #1:! Does! the! Supreme! Court! have! the! power! to! the!complaint:!the!filing!of!the!impeachment!complaint!

determine! whether! public! respondent! committed! a! ANDthe!referral!by!the!House!Plenary!to!the!Committee!

violation! of! the! Constitution! in! the! exercise! of! its!
on! Justice.! Once! an! impeachment! complaint! has! been!
discretion!relating!to!impeachment!proceeding?!
initiated! (meaning,! filed! and! initiated),! another!
HELD:! Yes,! under! the! doctrine! of! expanded! judicial!
impeachment! complaint! may! not! be! filed! against! the!
review.! The! Constitution! did! not! intend! to! leave! the!
same!official!within!a!one!year!period.!
matter! of! impeachment! to! the! sole! discretion! of!
!
Congress.! Instead,! it! provided! for! certain! wellEdefined!
ISSUE% #4:! Do! the! Impeachment! Rules! provide! for!
limits,! or! in! the! language! of! Baker! v.! Carr,! judicially!
comprehensible!standards!in!determining!the!sufficiency!
discoverable! standards"! for! determining! the! validity! of!
of!form!and!substance?!
the! exercise! of! such! discretion,! through! the! power! of!
HELD:! Yes.! Contrary! to! petitioner! contention,! the!
judicial! review.! There! exists! no! constitutional! basis! for!
Impeachment! Rules! are! clear! in! echoing! the!
the!contention!that!the!exercise!of!judicial!review!over!
constitutional! requirements! and! providing! that! there!
impeachment! proceedings! would! upset! the! system! of!
must!be!a!"verified!complaint!or!resolution,"and!that!the!
checks! and! balances.! Verily,! the! Constitution! is! to! be!
substance!requirement!is!met!if!there!is!"a!recital!of!facts!
interpreted! as! a! whole! and! "one! section! is! not! to! be!
constituting! the! offense! charged! and! determinative! of!
allowed! to! defeat! another."! Both! are! integral!
the!jurisdiction!of!the!committee.In!fact,!it!is!only!in!the!
components! of! the! calibrated! system! of! independence!
Impeachment!Ruleswhere!a!determination!of!sufficiency!
and! interdependence! that! insures! that! no! branch! of!
of!form!and!substance!of!an!impeachment!complaint!is!
government!act!beyond!the!powers!assigned!to!it!by!the!
made!necessary.!This!requirement!is!not!explicitly!found!
Constitution.Indubitably,! the! Court! is! not! asserting! its!
in!the!Constitution!which!merely!requires!a!"hearing."!(!
ascendancy! over! the! Legislature! in! this! instance,! but!
Section! 3[2],! Article! XI).In! the! discharge! of! its!
simply! upholding! the! supremacy! of! the! Constitution! as!
constitutional!duty,!the!House!deemed!that!a!finding!of!
the!repository!of!the!sovereign!will.!
sufficiency! of! form! and! substance! in! an! impeachment!
!
complaint! is! vital! "to! effectively! carry! out"! the!
ISSUE%#2:!Is!the!petition!premature!and!not!yet!ripe!for!
impeachment! process,! hence,! such! additional!
adjudication?!
requirement!in!the!Impeachment!Rules.!
HELD:!No.In!the!present!petition,!there!is!no!doubt!that!
!
questions! on! thevalidity! of! the! simultaneous! referralof!
ISSUE%#5:!May!the!Supreme!Court!look!into!the!narration!
the!two!complaints!and!on!theneed!to!publishas!a!mode!
of! facts! constitutive! of! the! offenses! visEEvis! petitioners!
of!promulgating!the!Rules!of!Procedure!in!Impeachment!
submissions! disclaiming! the! allegations! in! the!
Proceedings!of!the!House!(Impeachment!Rules)!present!
complaints?!
constitutional! vagaries! which! call! for! immediate!
HELD:!No.!This!issue!would!"require!the!Court!to!make!a!
interpretation.The! unusual! act! of! simultaneously!
determination! of! what! constitutes! an! impeachable!
referring! to! public! respondent! two! impeachment!
offense.! Such! a! determination! is! a! purely! political!
complaints!presents!a!novel!situation!to!invoke!judicial!
question! which! the! Constitution! has! left! to! the! sound!
power.! Petitioner! cannot! thus! be! considered! to! have!
discretion! of! the! legislature! (Francisco! vs.! House! of!
acted! prematurely! when! she! took! the! cue! from! the!
Representatives.)ISSUE!#6:!Was!petitioner!denied!of!due!
constitutional! limitation! that! only! one! impeachment!
process,! because! of! the! delay! in! the! publication! of! the!
proceeding! should! be! initiated! against! an! impeachable!
Impeachment! Rules?HELD:! No.! The! Supreme! Court!
officer!within!a!period!of!one!year.!
discussed! the! difference! between! publication! and!
!
promulgation.To! recall,! days! after! the! 15th! Congress!
ISSUE%#3:!When!is!an!impeachment!complaint!deemed!
opened! on! July! 26,! 2010! or! on! August! 3,! 2010,! public!
initiated?!
respondent! provisionally! adopted! the! Impeachment!
HELD:!There!are!two!components!of!the!act!of!initiating!
Rules!of!the!14th!Congress!and!thereafter!published!on!
September! 2,! 2010! its! Impeachment! Rules,! admittedly!
substantially!identical!with!that!of!the!14th!Congress,!in!
two! newspapers! of! general! circulation.! Citing! Taada! v.!
Tuvera,petitioner!contends!that!she!was!deprived!of!due!
process!since!the!Impeachment!Rules!was!published!only!
on! September! 2,! 2010! a! day! after! public! respondent!
ruled!on!the!sufficiency!of!form!of!the!complaints.!She!
likewise!tacks!her!contention!on!Section!3(8),!Article!XI!
of! the! Constitution! which! directs! that! "Congress! shall!
promulgate!its!rules!on!impeachment!to!effectively!carry!
out! the! purpose! of! this! section."Public! respondent!
counters!that!"promulgation"!in!this!case!refers!to!"the!
publication! of! rules! in! any! medium! of! information,! not!
necessarily! in! the! Official! Gazette! or! newspaper! of!
general!circulation."!While!"promulgation"!would!seem!
synonymous! to! "publication,"! there! is! a! statutory!
difference!in!their!usage.!The!Constitution!notably!uses!
the! word! "promulgate"! 12! times.A! number! of! those!
instances! involves! the! promulgation! of! various! rules,!
reports! and! issuances! emanating! from! Congress,! the!
Supreme!Court,!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman!as!well!as!
other! constitutional! offices.To! appreciate! the! statutory!
difference! in! the! usage! of! the! terms! "promulgate"! and!
"publish,"! the! case! of! the! Judiciary! is! in! point.! In!
promulgating! rules! concerning! the! protection! and!
enforcement! of! constitutional! rights,! pleading,! practice!
and! procedure! in! all! courts,! the! Supreme! Court! has!
invariably!required!the!publication!of!these!rules!for!their!
effectivity.! As! far! as! promulgation! of! judgments! is!
concerned,! however,! PROMULGATION! means! "the!
delivery!of!the!decision!to!the!clerk!of!court!for!filing!and!
publication.Promulgation! must! thus! be! used! in! the!
context! in! which! it! is! generally! understoodthat! is,! to!
make! known.! Since! the! Constitutional! Commission! did!
not!restrict!"promulgation"!to!"publication,"!the!former!
should!be!understood!to!have!been!used!in!its!general!
sense.!It!is!within!the!discretion!of!Congress!to!determine!
on!how!to!promulgate!its!Impeachment!Rules,!in!much!
the! same! way! that! the! Judiciary! is! permitted! to!
determine! that! to! promulgate! a! decision! means! to!
deliver! the! decision! to! the! clerk! of! court! for! filing! and!
publication.!It!is!not!for!the!Supreme!Court!to!tell!a!coE
equal! branch! of! government! how! to! promulgatewhen!
the! Constitution! itself! has! not! prescribed! a! specific!
method!of!promulgation.!The!Court!is!in!no!position!to!
dictate!a!mode!of!promulgation!beyond!the!dictates!of!
the! Constitution.Inquiriesin! aid! of! legislationunder!
Section! 21,! Article! VI! of! the! Constitution! is!
thesoleinstance! in! the! Constitution! where! there! is!
acategorical! directivetoduly! publish! a! set! of! rules! of!
procedure.(Neri!vs.!Senate)Even!assuming!arguendo!that!
publication! is! required,! lack! of! it! does! not! nullify! the!
proceedings! taken! prior! to! the! effectivity! of! the!
Impeachment! Rules! which! faithfully! comply! with! the!
relevant! selfEexecuting! provisions! of! the! Constitution.!
Otherwise,!in!cases!where!impeachment!complaints!are!
filed!at!the!start!of!each!Congress,!the!mandated!periods!
under! Section! 3,! Article! XI! of! the! Constitution! would!
already!run!or!even!lapse!while!awaiting!the!expiration!
of!the!15Eday!period!of!publication!prior!to!the!effectivity!
of! the! Impeachment! Rules.! In! effect,! the! House! would!
already! violate! the! Constitution! for! its! inaction! on! the!
impeachment!complaints!pending!the!completion!of!the!
publication!requirement.!(Just!like!what!happened!in!this!
case,!where!the!complaint!was!filed!even!before!the!15th!
Congress! open! its! first! session)Given! that! the!
Constitution! itself! states! that! any! promulgation! of! the!
rules!on!impeachment!is!aimed!at!"effectively!carry[ing]!
outthe!purpose"!of!impeachment!proceedings,!the!Court!
finds! no! grave! abuse! of! discretion! when! the! House!
deemed! it! proper! toprovisionallyadopt! the! Rules! on!
Impeachment!of!the!14th!Congress,!to!meet!the!exigency!
in! such! situation! of! early! filing! and! in! keeping! with! the!
"effective"! implementation! of! the! "purpose"! of! the!
impeachment!provisions.!In!other!words,!the!provisional!
adoption!of!the!previous!Congress!Impeachment!Rules!is!
within!the!power!of!the!House!to!promulgate!its!rules!on!
impeachment! to! effectively! carry! out! the! avowed!
purpose.Moreover,! the! rules! on! impeachment,! as!
contemplated!by!the!framers!of!the!Constitution,!merely!
aid! or! supplement! the! procedural! aspects! of!
impeachment.!Being!procedural!in!nature,!they!may!be!
given! retroactive! application! to! pending! actions.! The!
retroactive! application! of! procedural! laws! does! not!
violate! any! right! of! a! person! who! may! feel! that! he! is!
adversely! affected,! nor! is! it! constitutionally!
objectionable.! The! reason! for! this! is! that,! as! a! general!
rule,! no! vested! right! may! attach! to,! nor! arise! from,!
procedural! laws."In! the! present! case,petitioner! fails! to!
allege!any!impairment!of!vested!rights.It!bears!stressing!
that,! unlike! the! process! of! inquiryin! aid! of!
legislationwhere! the! rights! of! witnesses! are! involved,!
impeachment! is! primarily! for! the! protection! of! the!
people!as!a!body!politic,!and!not!for!the!punishment!of!
the!offender.!ISSUE!#6:!When!do!we!reckon!the!start!of!
the!oneEyear!ban?Petitioner!contends!that!it!is!reckoned!
from!thefilingof!the!first!impeachment!complaint!against!
her!on!July!22,!2010!or!four!days!before!the!opening!on!
July!26,!2010!of!the!15th!Congress.!She!posits!that!within!
one! year! from! July! 22,! 2010,! no! second! impeachment!
complaint! may! be! accepted! and! referred! to! public!
respondent.HELD:!Francisco!doctrinestates!that!the!term!
"initiate"!means!to!file!the!complaintand!referral!of!the!
complaint! to! the! Committee! on! Justice.! Once! an!
impeachment! complainthas! been! initiated,! another!
impeachment! complaint! may! not! be! filed! against! the!
same! official! within! a! one! year! period.! Therefore,! the!
oneEyear!period!ban!is!reckoned!not!from!the!filing!of!the!
first!complaint,!but!on!the!date!it!is!referred!to!the!House!
Committee! on! Justice.! Petitioner! submits! that! referral!
could! not! be! the! reckoning! point! of! initiation! because!
"something!prior!to!that!had!already!been!done.!This!is!
wrong.! Following! petitioners! line! of! reasoning,! the!
verification! of! the! complaint! or! the! endorsement! by! a!
member!of!the!House!steps!donepriorto!the!filing!would!
already!initiate!the!impeachment!proceedings.!
! general! rule! for! the! Sandiganbayan! to! acquire!
ISSUE% #7:! Does! an! impeachment! complaint! need! to!
allege! only! one! impeachable! offense?Petitioner! argues!
that! public! respondent! gravely! abused! its! discretion!
when!it!disregarded!its!own!Impeachment!Rules,!which!
provides!that!"the!Rules!ofCriminalProcedure!under!the!
Rules! of! Court! shall,as! far! as! practicable,! apply! to!
impeachment!proceedings!before!the!House."!Petitioner!
invokes! the! application! of! Section! 13,! Rule! 110! of! the!
Rules! on! Criminal! Procedure! on! one! offense! per!
complaint! rule.! To! petitioner,! the! two! impeachment!
complaints!are!insufficient!in!form!and!substance!since!
each! charges! her! with! both! culpable! violation! of! the!
Constitution!and!betrayal!of!public!trust.!!
HELD:! The! Constitution! allows! the! indictment! for!
multiple! impeachment! offenses,! with! each! charge!
representing! an! article! of! impeachment,! assembled! in!
one! set! known! as! the! "Articles! of! Impeachment."It,!
therefore,!follows!that!an!impeachment!complaint!need!
not!allege!only!one!impeachable!offense.PEOPLE!OF!THE!
PHILIPPINES!v!SANDIGANBAYAN!and!VICTORIA!AMANTE!
G.R.! NO.! 167304! AUGUST! 25,! 2009FACTS:Victoria!
Amante,! a! member! of! the! Sangguniang! Panlungsod! of!
Toledo! City,! Province! of! Cebu,! was! charged! in! the!
Sandiganbayan! with! violation! of! P.D.! 1455,! otherwise!
known!as!The!Auditing!Code!of!the!Philippines.!Accused!
filed! a! Motion! for! Reinvestigation! due! to! lack! of!
Jurisdiction!stating!that!Section!4!of!R.A.!8249!provides!
that! the! Sandiganbayan! shall! have! original! jurisdiction!
only! in! cases! where! the! accused! holds! a! position!
otherwise!classified!as!Salary!Grade!27!or!higher,!based!
on! the! Compensation! and! Position! Classification! Act! of!
1989!(R.A.!7658).!The!Sandiganbayan!considered!the!said!
motion! by! Amante! and! dimissed! the! case.Petitioner!
disputed!the!contention!of!Amante!and!the!appreciation!
of! the! Sandiganbayan! of! its! decision! in! Inding! v!
Sandiganbayan,!which!in!this!particular!case,!Inding!did!
not! categorically! nor! implicitly! constrict! or! confine! the!
application! of! the! enumeration! provided! for! in! Section!
4(a)(1)! of! P.D.! 1606,! as! amended,! exclusively! to! cases!
where! the! offense! charged! is! either! violation! of! R.A.!
3019,!R.A.!1379,!or!Chapter!II,!Section!2,!Title!VII!of!the!
RPC.! Petitioner! adds! that! the! enumeration! in! the! said!
statutes!were!equally!applicable!to!offenses!committed!
in!relation!to!public!office.Amante!commented!that!the!
jurisdiction!over!the!subject!matter!as!laid!down!in!the!
Section! 4! of! P.D.! 1806! which! states! that! the! offender!
must!be!of!SG!27!and!the!exceptions!were!laid!down!in!
the! following! sub! paragraphs! and! if! the! indictment!
involves!offenses!other!than!that!of!the!three!offenses!
mentioned,! such! general! rule! shall! be! applicable.!
Respondent! stated! therefore! that! the! Ruling! of! the!
Sandiganbayan!is!correct!in!its!decision.OSP,!in!its!reply,!
reiterated! that! the! enumeration! of! Public! officials! in!
Section! 4(a)(1)! to! (g)! or! P.D.! 1606! as! falling! within! the!
original!jurisdiction!of!the!Sandiganbayan!should!include!
their! commission! of! other! offenses! in! relation! to! the!
office!under!Section!4(b)!of!the!same!P.D.!1606.!It!cited!
the!case!of!Esteban!v!Sandiganbayan!wherein!the!ruling!
of! the! Court! is! that! an! offense! is! said! to! have! been!
intimately!connected!with!the!office!of!the!offender!or!
perpetrated! in! the! performance! of! his! or! her! official!
functions.!
!
ISSUE:! Whether! or! not! a! member! of! the! Sangguniang!
Panlungsod!under!Salary!Grade!26!who!was!charged!with!
violation! of! The! Auditing! Code! of! the! Philippines! falls!
within!the!jurisdiction!of!the!Sandiganbayan.!
HELD:Yes.! The! Supreme! Court! ruled! that! the! offense!
therein! charged! is! intimately! connected! with! the!
accuseds!office!and!was!and!was!perpetrated!while!they!
were!in!the!performance,!though!improper!or!irregular,!
of! their! official! functions.! Indeed,! the! accused! had! no!
personal!motive!to!commit!the!crime!and!they!would!not!
have! committed! it! had! they! not! held! their! offices.It! is!
beyond!the!clarity!that!the!same!provision!of!Section!4(b)!
does! not! mention! any! qualification! as! to! the! public!
officals! involved.! It! simply! stated,! public! officials! and!
employees! mentioned! in! subsection! (a)! of! the! same!
code.! Therefore,! it! refers! to! those! public! officials! with!
Salary! Grade! 27! and! above,! except! those! specifically!
enumerated.It! is! a! well! settled! principle! of! legal!
hermeneutics!that!words!of!statute!will!be!interpreted!in!
their! natural! ,! plain! and! ordinary! acceptation! and!
signification,! unless! it! is! evident! that! the! legislature!
intended! a! technical! or! special! legal! meaning! to! those!
words.Petition!is!granted.!The!case!is!Remanded!to!the!
Sandiganbayan!for!further!proceedings.!
!