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.