Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    Gutierrez Vs House of Rep

    Uploaded by

    Clyde Louis Carreon Oliver
    The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to enjoin impeachment proceedings against a public official. Two separate impeachment complaints were simultaneously referred by the House of Representatives to the Committee on Justice. The petitioner argued this was premature and violated the one-year rule between impeachment proceedings. The Court held that the unusual act of simultaneous referral presented a novel situation allowing judicial review. It also held that the initiation of impeachment starts with the filing of the complaint and initial action on it by Congress, which occurred only once here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gutierrez Vs House of Rep

    Uploaded by

    Clyde Louis Carreon Oliver
    141 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to enjoin impeachment proceedings against a public official. Two separate impeachment complaints were simultaneously referred by the House of Representatives to the Committee on Justice. The petitioner argued this was premature and violated the one-year rule between impeachment proceedings. The Court held that the unusual act of simultaneous referral presented a novel situation allowing judicial review. It also held that the initiation of impeachment starts with the filing of the complaint and initial action on it by Congress, which occurred only once here.

    Original Description:

    Digest of Gutiérrez vs. House of Rep

    Original Title

    Gutierrez vs House of Rep

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to enjoin impeachment proceedings against a public official. Two separate impeachment complaints were simultaneously referred by the House of Representatives to the Committee on Justice. The petitioner argued this was premature and violated the one-year rule between impeachment proceedings. The Court held that the unusual act of simultaneous referral presented a novel situation allowing judicial review. It also held that the initiation of impeachment starts with the filing of the complaint and initial action on it by Congress, which occurred only once here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    141 views2 pages

    Gutierrez Vs House of Rep

    Uploaded by

    Clyde Louis Carreon Oliver
    The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to enjoin impeachment proceedings against a public official. Two separate impeachment complaints were simultaneously referred by the House of Representatives to the Committee on Justice. The petitioner argued this was premature and violated the one-year rule between impeachment proceedings. The Court held that the unusual act of simultaneous referral presented a novel situation allowing judicial review. It also held that the initiation of impeachment starts with the filing of the complaint and initial action on it by Congress, which occurred only once here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    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