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.
Respondent Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Representatives counters that under Section 3 (8) <strong>of</strong> Article XI, it is clear<br />
and unequivocal that it and only it has <strong>the</strong> power to make and interpret its rules governing<br />
impeachment. Its argument is premised on <strong>the</strong> assumption that Congress has absolute power to<br />
promulgate its rules. This assumption, however, is misplaced.<br />
Section 3 (8) <strong>of</strong> Article XI provides that "The Congress shall promulgate its rules on<br />
impeachment to effectively carry out <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> this section." Clearly, its power to<br />
promulgate its rules on impeachment is limited by <strong>the</strong> phrase "to effectively carry out <strong>the</strong><br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> this section." Hence, <strong>the</strong>se rules cannot contravene <strong>the</strong> very purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Constitution which said rules were intended to effectively carry out. Moreover, Section 3 <strong>of</strong><br />
Article XI clearly provides for o<strong>the</strong>r specific limitations on its power to make rules, viz:<br />
Section 3. (1) x x x<br />
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong><br />
Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution <strong>of</strong> endorsement by any Member<br />
<strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong>, which shall be included in <strong>the</strong> Order <strong>of</strong> B<strong>us</strong>iness within ten session days, and<br />
referred to <strong>the</strong> proper Committee within three session days <strong>the</strong>reafter. The Committee,<br />
after hearing, and by a majority vote <strong>of</strong> all its Members, shall submit its report to <strong>the</strong><br />
Ho<strong>us</strong>e within sixty session days from such referral, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> corresponding<br />
resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e within ten<br />
session days from receipt <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong>.<br />
(3) A vote <strong>of</strong> at least one-third <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> Members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e shall be necessary to<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r affirm a favorable resolution with <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong> Impeachment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Committee,<br />
or override its contrary resolution. The vote <strong>of</strong> each Member shall be recorded.<br />
(4) In case <strong>the</strong> verified complaint or resolution <strong>of</strong> impeachment is filed by at least onethird<br />
<strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> Members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e, <strong>the</strong> same shall constitute <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong><br />
Impeachment, and trial by <strong>the</strong> Senate shall forthwith proceed.<br />
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against <strong>the</strong> same <strong>of</strong>ficial more than<br />
once within a period <strong>of</strong> one year.<br />
It is basic that all rules m<strong>us</strong>t not contravene <strong>the</strong> Constitution which is <strong>the</strong> fundamental law. If as<br />
alleged Congress had absolute rule making power, <strong>the</strong>n it would by necessary implication have<br />
<strong>the</strong> power to alter or amend <strong>the</strong> meaning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Constitution without need <strong>of</strong> referendum.<br />
In Osmeña v. Pendatun, 149 this Court held that it is within <strong>the</strong> province <strong>of</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong><br />
Congress to interpret its rules and that it was <strong>the</strong> best judge <strong>of</strong> what constituted "disorderly<br />
behavior" <strong>of</strong> its members. However, in Paceta v. Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Commission on<br />
Appointments, 150 J<strong>us</strong>tice (later Chief J<strong>us</strong>tice) Enrique Fernando, speaking for this Court and<br />
quoting J<strong>us</strong>tice Brandeis in United States v. Smith, 151 declared that where <strong>the</strong> construction to be<br />
given to a rule affects persons o<strong>the</strong>r than members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Legislature, <strong>the</strong> question becomes<br />
judicial in nature. In Arroyo v. De Venecia, 152 quoting United States v. Ballin, Joseph & Co., 153<br />
J<strong>us</strong>tice Vicente Mendoza, speaking for this Court, held that while <strong>the</strong> Constitution empowers