Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
endorsing and <strong>the</strong> Senate from trying <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong> Impeachment and that <strong>the</strong> second<br />
impeachment complaint be declared null and void.<br />
In G.R. No. 160397, petitioner Atty. Dioscoro Vallejos, Jr., without alleging his loc<strong>us</strong> standi, but<br />
alleging that <strong>the</strong> second impeachment complaint is founded on <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong><br />
Judicial Development Fund (JDF) was spent in accordance with law and that <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong><br />
Representatives does not have excl<strong>us</strong>ive jurisdiction in <strong>the</strong> examination and audit <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong>, prays<br />
in his petition "To Declare Complaint Null and Void for Lack <strong>of</strong> Ca<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Action and<br />
Jurisdiction" that <strong>the</strong> second impeachment complaint be declared null and void.<br />
In G.R. No. 160403, petitioner Philippine Bar Association, alleging that <strong>the</strong> issues raised in <strong>the</strong><br />
filing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> second impeachment complaint involve matters <strong>of</strong> transcendental importance, prays<br />
in its petition for Certiorari/Prohibition that (1) <strong>the</strong> second impeachment complaint and all<br />
proceedings arising <strong>the</strong>refrom be declared null and void; (2) respondent Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong><br />
Representatives be prohibited from transmitting <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong> Impeachment to <strong>the</strong> Senate; and<br />
(3) respondent Senate be prohibited from accepting <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong> Impeachment and from<br />
conducting any proceedings <strong>the</strong>reon.<br />
In G.R. No. 160405, petitioners Democrit C. Barcenas et. al., as citizens and taxpayers, pray in<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir petition for Certiorari/Prohibition that (1) <strong>the</strong> second impeachment complaint as well as <strong>the</strong><br />
resolution <strong>of</strong> endorsement and impeachment by <strong>the</strong> respondent Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Representatives be<br />
declared null and void and (2) respondents Senate and Senate President Franklin Drilon be<br />
prohibited from accepting any Articles <strong>of</strong> Impeachment against <strong>the</strong> Chief J<strong>us</strong>tice or, in <strong>the</strong> event<br />
that <strong>the</strong>y have accepted <strong>the</strong> same, that <strong>the</strong>y be prohibited from proceeding with <strong>the</strong> impeachment<br />
trial.<br />
Petitions bearing docket numbers G.R. Nos. 160261, 160262 and 160263, <strong>the</strong> first three <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
eighteen which were filed before this Court, 18 prayed for <strong>the</strong> issuance <strong>of</strong> a Temporary<br />
Restraining Order and/or preliminary injunction to prevent <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Representatives from<br />
transmitting <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong> Impeachment arising from <strong>the</strong> second impeachment complaint to <strong>the</strong><br />
Senate. Petition bearing docket number G.R. No. 160261 likewise prayed for <strong>the</strong> declaration <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> November 28, 2001 Ho<strong>us</strong>e Impeachment Rules as null and void for being unconstitutional.<br />
Petitions bearing docket numbers G.R. Nos. 160277, 160292 and 160295, which were filed on<br />
October 28, 2003, sought similar relief. In addition, petition bearing docket number G.R. No.<br />
160292 alleged that Ho<strong>us</strong>e Resolution No. 260 (calling for a legislative inquiry into <strong>the</strong><br />
administration by <strong>the</strong> Chief J<strong>us</strong>tice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> JDF) infringes on <strong>the</strong> constitutional doctrine <strong>of</strong><br />
separation <strong>of</strong> powers and is a direct violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> constitutional principle <strong>of</strong> fiscal autonomy <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> judiciary.<br />
On October 28, 2003, during <strong>the</strong> plenary session <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Representatives, a motion was<br />
put forth that <strong>the</strong> second impeachment complaint be formally transmitted to <strong>the</strong> Senate, but it<br />
was not carried beca<strong>us</strong>e <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Representatives adjourned for lack <strong>of</strong> quorum, 19 and as<br />
reflected above, to date, <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong> Impeachment have yet to be forwarded to <strong>the</strong> Senate.