Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
193459
February 15, 2011
GUTIERREZ vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE
Facts:
1. On 22 July 2010, Baraquel, et al. filed an
impeachment complaint (First Complaint) against
Ombudsman
Ma.
Merceditas N.
Gutierrez
(petitioner) based on betrayal of public trust and
culpable violation of the Constitution.
2. On 3 August 2010, a Second Complaint was filed by
Reyes, et al. against the same respondent also
based on betrayal of public trust and culpable
violation of the Constitution.
3. On 11 August 2010, the two complaints were
referred by the House Plenary to the Committee on
Justice at the same time.
4. On 1 September 2010, the Committee on Justice
found the First and Second Complaints sufficient in
form. On 7 September 2010, the Committee on
Justice, found the First and Second Complaints were
sufficient in form.
5. On 13 September 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.
Petitioner: She invokes 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."
Public Respondent: 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 the sufficiency
of form and substance of the two complaints. Hence,
certiorari is unavailing.
6. The following day, during the en banc morning
session of 14 September 2010, the majority of the
Court voted to issue a status quo ante order
suspending the impeachment proceedings against
petitioner. (Note: In urgent cases, it is a matter of
practice for the Court that all the Justices should
have been given time, at least an hour or two, to
read the petition before voting on the issuance of
the status quo ante order. Unfortunately, this was not
done.)
7. Section 3(5), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution
provides that "no impeachment proceedings shall be
initiated against the same official more than once
within a period of one year."
Issue #1: Does the Supreme Court have the power to
determine whether public respondent committed a