Comprobar la regulación básica de las compuertas e impulsos de los servomotores

G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, CARPIO MORALES, J.

Judicial review is indeed an integral component of the delicate system of checks and balances which, together with the corollary principle of separation of powers, forms the bedrock of our republican form of government and insures that its vast powers are utilized only for the benefit of the people for which it serves.

Facts:

Former President Estrada filed an the first impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. (CJ Davide) for culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes. The House Committee on Justice ruled that the first impeachment complaint was sufficient in form, but voted to dismiss the same for being insufficient in substance.

Four months after the dismissal of the first complaint, the second impeachment complaint was filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella against CJ Davide, Jr. founded on the alleged results of the investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).

The instant petitions arose against the House of Representatives, et. al., most of which contend that the filing of the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution that "no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year."

Issue:

Whether the power of judicial review extends to those arising from impeachment proceedings.

Ruling:

YES. As reflected above, petitioners plead for this Court to exercise the power of judicial review to determine the validity of the second impeachment complaint.

This Court's power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the government in Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987 Constitution which states that the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and 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 separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government and the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and

Finally, there exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another. Both are integral components of the calibrated system of independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution.

Consequently, the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which was filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with the Office of the Secretary General of the House of Representatives on October 23, 2003 is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________

MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ v. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, RISA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL,FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.et al.

G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011, CARPIO MORALES, J.

It bears stressing that, unlike the process of inquiry in aid of legislation where 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.

Facts:

Respondents Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Danilo Lim, and spouses Felipe and Evelyn Pestaño (Baraquel group) filed an impeachment complaint against Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez. Also, respondents Renato Reyes, Jr., Mother Mary John Mananzan, Danilo Ramos, Edre Olalia, Ferdinand Gaite and James Terry Ridon (Reyes group) filed another impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Gutierrez.

During its plenary session, the House of Representatives simultaneously referred both complaints to the public respondent HOR Committee on Justice. After hearing, public respondent, through two separate Resolutions, found both complaints sufficient in form and in substance which both allege culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

Petitioner Gutierrez, challenges via petition for certiorari and prohibition the Resolutions of the House of Representatives Committee on Justice. Respondents raise the impropriety of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition. They argue that public respondent was not exercising any judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial function in taking cognizance of the two impeachment complaints as it was exercising a political act that is discretionary in nature.

Issue:

Whether HOR Committee on Justice committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its two assailed Resolutions.

Ruing:

NO. Petitioner alleges that public respondent’s chairperson, Representative NielTupas, Jr. (Rep. Tupas), is the subject of an investigation she is conducting, while his father, former Iloilo Governor Niel Tupas, Sr., had been charged by her with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan. To petitioner, the actions

taken by her office against Rep. Tupas and his father influenced the proceedings taken by public respondent in such a way that bias and vindictiveness played a big part in arriving at the finding of sufficiency of form and substance of the complaints against her.

The Court finds petitioner’s allegations of bias and vindictiveness bereft of merit, there being hardly any indication thereof. Mere suspicion of partiality does not suffice. The act of the head of a collegial body cannot be considered as that of the entire body itself.

The determination of sufficiency of form and substance of an impeachment complaint is an exponent of the express constitutional grant of rule-making powers of the House of Representatives which committed such determinative function to public respondent. In the discharge of that power and in the exercise of its discretion, the House has formulated determinable standards as to the form and substance of an impeachment complaint. Prudential considerations behoove the Court to respect the compliance by the House of its duty to effectively carry out the constitutional purpose, absent any contravention of the minimum constitutional guidelines.

In another vein, petitioner, pursuing her claim of denial of due process, questions the lack of or, more accurately, delay in the publication of the Impeachment Rules. 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."

Promulgation must thus be used in the context in which it is generally understood— that is, to make known. Generalia verba sunt generaliter inteligencia. What is generally spoken shall be generally understood. Between the restricted sense and the general meaning of a word, the general must prevail unless it was clearly intended that the restricted sense was to be used.

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. Publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is but one avenue for Congress to make known its rules.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES sitting as an IMPEACHMENT COURT, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, ARLENE "KAKA" BAG-AO, GIORGIDI AGGABAO, MARILYN PRIMICIAS-AGABAS, NIEL TUPAS, RODOLFO FARINAS, SHERWIN TUGNA, RAUL DAZA, ELPIDIO BARZAGA, REYNALDO UMALI, NERI COLMENARES (ALSO KNOWN AS THE PROSECUTORS FROM