Gutierrez v.

House of Representatives (2011) (one-year bar)

(Edited Consti Case Matrix)

DOCTRINE: 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 couple 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. The one year period commences from
that period.

FACTS

•
3
July 22, 2010: Before the 15th Congress opened its first session on July 26, 2010 , private respondents Risa Hontiveros-
Baraquel, Danilo Lim, and spouses Felipe and Evelyn Pestao (Baraquel group) filed an impeachment complaint against
petitioner Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, upon the endorsement of Party-List Representatives Arlene Bag-ao and
Walden Bello.
• July 27: Atty. Marilyn Barua-Yap, Secretary General of the House of Representatives, transmitted the impeachment
complaint to House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. who, by Memorandum of August 2, 2010, directed the Committee on
Rules to include it in the Order of Business.
• Aug. 3: Private respondents Renato Reyes, Jr., Mother Mary John Mananzan, Danilo Ramos, Edre Olalia, Ferdinand Gaite
and James Terry Ridon (Reyes group) filed another impeachment complaint.
o By letter still of even date, the Secretary General transmitted the Reyes groups complaint to Speaker Belmonte
who, by Memorandum of August 9, 2010, also directed the Committee on Rules to include it in the Order of
Business.
• Aug. 11: during its plenary session, the House of Representatives simultaneously referred both complaints to public
respondent HoR Committee on Justice.
• Sept. 1: After hearing, public respondent, by Resolution, found both complaints sufficient in form, which complaints it
considered to have been referred to it at exactly the same time.
• Sept. 7: Public resp found the two complaints, which both allege culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public
trust, sufficient in substance.
• Six days following her receipt of the notice to file answer or on September 13, 2010, petitioner filed with this Court the
present petition with application for injunctive reliefs.

ISSUES/HELD:

Was there violation of the one year bar rule? – NO.

• Article XI, Section 3, paragraph (5) of the Constitution reads:

o No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one
year.
• Petitioner reckons the start of the one-year bar from the filing of the first impeachment complaint against her on July 22,
2010 or four days before the opening on July 26, 2010 of the 15th Congress. She posits that within one year from July 22,
2010, no second impeachment complaint may be accepted and referred to public respondent.
• Contrary to petitioner’s asseveration, Francisco states that the term initiate means to file the complaint and take initial action
on it.
o The initiation starts with the filing of the complaint which must be accompanied with an action to set the complaint
moving.
o It refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with Congress taking initial action of said complaint.
o The initial action taken by the House on the complaint is the referral of the complaint to the Committee on Justice.
• The filing of an impeachment complaint is like lighting a matchstick. Lighting the matchstick alone cannot light up the candle
unless the lighted matchstick reaches or torches the candle wick
o Referring the complaint to the proper committee ignites the impeachment proceeding
o With a simultaneous referral of multiple complaint filed, more than one lighted matchsticks light the candle at the
same time
o What is important is that there should only be one candle that is kindled in a year, such that once the candle starts
burning, subsequent matchsticks can no longer rekindle the candle.
• The Constitution did not place the power of the final say on the lips of the House Secretary General who would otherwise
be calling the shots in forwarding or freezing any impeachment complaint.
o Referral of the complaint to the proper committee is not done by the House Speaker alone either
§ Which explains why there is a need to include it in the order of business.
o It is the House of Representatives, in public plenary session, which has the power to set its own chamber into
special operation by referring the complaint or to otherwise guard against the initiation of a second impeachment
proceeding by rejecting a patently unconstitutional complaint.

3
The fourth Monday of July, in accordance with Section 15, Article VI of the Constitution

Jaigest – PoliRev - 4