G.R. No.

193459 February 15, 2011

MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ Petitioner,

vs.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, RISA HONTIVEROS-
BARAQUEL, DANILO D. LIM, FELIPE PESTAÑO, EVELYN PESTAÑO, RENATO M. REYES, JR.,
SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN); MOTHER MARY
JOHN MANANZAN, CO-CHAIRPERSON OF PAGBABAGO; DANILO RAMOS, SECRETARY-
GENERAL OF KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP); ATTY. EDRE OLALIA, ACTING
SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLE'S LAWYERS (NUPL);
FERDINAND R. GAITE, CHAIRPERSON, CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND
ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE); and JAMES TERRY RIDON OF
THE LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS), Respondents.
FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., Respondent-Intervenor.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

The Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez (petitioner), challenges via petition for certiorari and
prohibition the Resolutions of September 1 and 7, 2010 of the House of Representatives Committee
on Justice (public respondent).

Before the 15th Congress opened its first session on July 26, 2010 (the fourth Monday of July, in
accordance with Section 15, Article VI of the Constitution) or on July 22, 2010, private respondents
Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Danilo Lim, and spouses Felipe and Evelyn Pestaño (Baraquel group)
filed an impeachment complaint1 against petitioner, upon the endorsement of Party-List
Representatives Arlene Bag-ao and Walden Bello.2

A day after the opening of the 15th Congress or on July 27, 2010, Atty. Marilyn Barua-Yap,
Secretary General of the House of Representatives, transmitted the impeachment complaint to
House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr.3 who, by Memorandum of August 2, 2010, directed the
Committee on Rules to include it in the Order of Business.4

On August 3, 2010, private respondents Renato Reyes, Jr., Mother Mary John Mananzan, Danilo
Ramos, Edre Olalia, Ferdinand Gaite and James Terry Ridon (Reyes group) filed another
impeachment complaint5 against petitioner with a resolution of endorsement by Party-List
Representatives Neri Javier Colmenares, Teodoro Casiño, Rafael Mariano, Luzviminda Ilagan,
Antonio Tinio and Emerenciana de Jesus.6 On even date, the House of Representatives
provisionally adopted the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the 14th Congress. By
letter still of even date,7 the Secretary General transmitted the Reyes group’s complaint to Speaker
Belmonte who, by Memorandum of August 9, 2010,8 also directed the Committee on Rules to
include it in the Order of Business.

On August 10, 2010, House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II, as chairperson of the Committee
on Rules,9 instructed Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr., Deputy Secretary General for Operations, through
Atty. Cesar Pareja, Executive Director of the Plenary Affairs Department, to include the two
complaints in the Order of Business,10 which was complied with by their inclusion in the Order of
Business for the following day, August 11, 2010.

On August 11, 2010 at 4:47 p.m., during its plenary session, the House of
Representatives simultaneously referred both complaints to public respondent.11
After hearing, public respondent, by Resolution of September 1, 2010, found both complaints
sufficient in form, which complaints it considered to have been referred to it at exactly the same time.

Meanwhile, the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the 15th Congress was
published on September 2, 2010.

On September 6, 2010, petitioner tried to file a motion to reconsider the September 1, 2010
Resolution of public respondent. Public respondent refused to accept the motion, however, for
prematurity; instead, it advised petitioner to await the notice for her to file an answer to the
complaints, drawing petitioner to furnish copies of her motion to each of the 55 members of public
respondent.

After hearing, public respondent, by Resolution of September 7, 2010, found the two complaints,
which both allege culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust,12 sufficient in
substance. The determination of the sufficiency of substance of the complaints by public respondent,
which assumed hypothetically the truth of their allegations, hinged on the issue of whether valid
judgment to impeach could be rendered thereon. Petitioner was served also on September 7, 2010 a
notice directing her to file an answer to the complaints within 10 days.13

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. The following day or on
September 14, 2010, the Court En Banc RESOLVED to direct the issuance of a status quo
ante order14 and to require respondents to comment on the petition in 10 days. The Court
subsequently, by Resolution of September 21, 2010, directed the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) to file in 10 days its Comment on the petition

The Baraquel group which filed the first complaint, the Reyes group which filed the second
complaint, and public respondent (through the OSG and private counsel) filed their respective
Comments on September 27, 29 and 30, 2010.

Speaker Belmonte filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene dated October 4, 2010 which the Court
granted by Resolution of October 5, 2010.

Under an Advisory15 issued by the Court, oral arguments were conducted on October 5 and 12,
2010, followed by petitioner’s filing of a Consolidated Reply of October 15, 2010 and the filing by the
parties of Memoranda within the given 15-day period.

The petition is harangued by procedural objections which the Court shall first resolve.

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,16 and that its function is inquisitorial that is akin to a preliminary
investigation.17

These same arguments were raised in Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives.18 The argument
that impeachment proceedings are beyond the reach of judicial review was debunked in this wise:

The major difference between the judicial power of the Philippine Supreme Court and that of the
U.S. Supreme Court is that while the power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to the U.S.
Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature, that granted to the Philippine Supreme Court and
lower courts, as expressly provided for in the Constitution, is not just a power but also a duty, and it
was given an expanded definition to include the power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on
the part of any government branch or instrumentality.

There are also glaring distinctions between the U.S. Constitution and the Philippine Constitution with
respect to the power of the House of Representatives over impeachment proceedings. While the
U.S. Constitution bestows sole power of impeachment to the House of Representatives without
limitation, our Constitution, though vesting in the House of Representatives the exclusive power to
initiate impeachment cases, provides for several limitations to the exercise of such power as
embodied in Section 3(2), (3), (4) and (5), Article XI thereof. These limitations include the manner of
filing, required vote to impeach, and the one year bar on the impeachment of one and the same
official.

Respondents are also of the view that judicial review of impeachments undermines their finality and
may also lead to conflicts between Congress and the judiciary. Thus, they call upon this Court to
exercise judicial statesmanship on the principle that "whenever possible, the Court should defer to
the judgment of the people expressed legislatively, recognizing full well the perils of judicial
willfulness and pride."

But did not the people also express their will when they instituted the above-mentioned safeguards
in the Constitution? This shows that the Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of
impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. Instead, it provided for certain well-defined limits, or
in the language of Baker v. Carr,"judicially discoverable standards" for determining the validity of the
exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review.

xxxx

There is indeed a plethora of cases in which this Court exercised the power of judicial review over
congressional action. Thus, in Santiago v. Guingona, Jr., this Court ruled that it is well within the
power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether the Senate or its officials committed a violation
of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives.
In Tañada v. Angara, in seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it
contravened the Constitution, it held that the petition raises a justiciable controversy and that when
an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes
not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. In Bondoc v. Pineda, this
Court declared null and void a resolution of the House of Representatives withdrawing the
nomination, and rescinding the election, of a congressman as a member of the House Electoral
Tribunal for being violative of Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution. In Coseteng v. Mitra, it held
that the resolution of whether the House representation in the Commission on Appointments was
based on proportional representation of the political parties as provided in Section 18, Article VI of
the Constitution is subject to judicial review. In Daza v. Singson, it held that the act of the House of
Representatives in removing the petitioner from the Commission on Appointments is subject to
judicial review. In Tañada v. Cuenco, it held that although under the Constitution, the legislative
power is vested exclusively in Congress, this does not detract from the power of the courts to pass
upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress. In Angara v. Electoral Commission, it ruled that
confirmation by the National Assembly of the election of any member, irrespective of whether his
election is contested, is not essential before such member-elect may discharge the duties and enjoy
the privileges of a member of the National Assembly.

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.19 (citations
omitted; italics in the original; underscoring supplied)

Francisco characterizes the power of judicial review as a duty which, as the expanded certiorari
jurisdiction20 of this Court reflects, includes the power 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."21

In the present case, petitioner invokes the Court’s expanded certiorari jurisdiction, using the special
civil actions of certiorari and prohibition as procedural vehicles. The Court finds it well-within its
power to determine whether public respondent committed a violation of the Constitution or gravely
abused its discretion in the exercise of its functions and prerogatives that could translate as lack or
excess of jurisdiction, which would require corrective measures from the Court.

Indubitably, the Court is not asserting its ascendancy over the Legislature in this instance, but simply
upholding the supremacy of the Constitution as the repository of the sovereign will.22

Respondents do not seriously contest all the essential requisites for the exercise of judicial review,
as they only assert 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 petition23 on September
13, 2010, it had not gone beyond the determination of the sufficiency of form and substance of the
two complaints.

An aspect of the "case-or-controversy" requirement is the requisite of ripeness.24 The question of

ripeness is especially relevant in light of the direct, adverse effect on an individual by the challenged
conduct.25 In the present petition, there is no doubt that questions on, inter alia, the validity of the
simultaneous referral of the two complaints and on the need to publish as a mode of promulgating
the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the House (Impeachment Rules) present
constitutional vagaries which call for immediate interpretation.

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.

And so the Court proceeds to resolve the substantive issue ─ whether public respondent
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its two
assailed Resolutions. Petitioner basically anchors her claim on alleged violation of the due process
clause (Art. III, Sec. 1) and of the one-year bar provision (Art. XI, Sec 3, par. 5) of the Constitution.

Due process of law

Petitioner alleges that public respondent’s chairperson, Representative Niel Tupas, 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.26

The act of the head of a collegial body cannot be considered as that of the entire body itself. So
GMCR, Inc. v. Bell Telecommunications Phils.27 teaches:

First. We hereby declare that the NTC is a collegial body requiring a majority vote out of the three
members of the commission in order to validly decide a case or any incident therein. Corollarily, the
vote alone of the chairman of the commission, as in this case, the vote of Commissioner Kintanar,
absent the required concurring vote coming from the rest of the membership of the commission to at
least arrive at a majority decision, is not sufficient to legally render an NTC order, resolution or
decision.

Simply put, Commissioner Kintanar is not the National Telecommunications Commission. He alone
does not speak and in behalf of the NTC. The NTC acts through a three-man body x x x. 28

In the present case, Rep. Tupas, public respondent informs, did not, in fact, vote and merely
presided over the proceedings when it decided on the sufficiency of form and substance of the
complaints.29

Even petitioner’s counsel conceded during the oral arguments that there are no grounds to compel
the inhibition of Rep. Tupas.

JUSTICE CUEVAS:

Well, the Committee is headed by a gentleman who happened to be a respondent in the charges
that the Ombudsman filed. In addition to that[,] his father was likewise a respondent in another case.
How can he be expected to act with impartiality, in fairness and in accordance with law under that
matter, he is only human we grant him that benefit.

JUSTICE MORALES:

Is he a one-man committee?

JUSTICE CUEVAS:

He is not a one-man committee, Your Honor, but he decides.

JUSTICE MORALES:

Do we presume good faith or we presume bad faith?

JUSTICE CUEVAS:

We presume that he is acting in good faith, Your Honor, but then (interrupted)

JUSTICE MORALES:

So, that he was found liable for violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, does that mean
that your client will be deprived of due process of law?
JUSTICE CUEVAS:

No, what we are stating, Your Honor, is that expectation of a client goes with the Ombudsman,
which goes with the element of due process is the lack of impartiality that may be expected of him.

JUSTICE MORALES:

But as you admitted the Committee is not a one-man committee?

JUSTICE CUEVAS:

That is correct, Your Honor.

JUSTICE MORALES:

So, why do you say then that there is a lack of impartiality?

JUSTICE CUEVAS:

Because if anything before anything goes (sic) he is the presiding officer of the committee as in this
case there were objections relative to the existence of the implementing rules not heard, there was
objection made by Congressman Golez to the effect that this may give rise to a constitutional crisis.

JUSTICE MORALES:

That called for a voluntary inhibition. Is there any law or rule you can cite which makes it mandatory
for the chair of the committee to inhibit given that he had previously been found liable for violation of
a law[?]

JUSTICE CUEVAS:

There is nothing, Your Honor. In our jurisprudence which deals with the situation whereby with that
background as the material or pertinent antecedent that there could be no violation of the right of the
petitioner to due process. What is the effect of notice, hearing if the judgment cannot come from an
impartial adjudicator.30 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Petitioner contends that the "indecent and precipitate haste" of public respondent in finding the two
complaints sufficient in form and substance is a clear indication of bias, she pointing out that it only
took public respondent five minutes to arrive thereat. lawphi 1

An abbreviated pace in the conduct of proceedings is not per se an indication of bias, however. So
Santos-Concio v. Department of Justice31 holds:

Speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer cannot per se be instantly
attributed to an injudicious performance of functions. For one’s prompt dispatch may be another’s
undue haste. The orderly administration of justice remains as the paramount and constant
consideration, with particular regard of the circumstances peculiar to each case.

The presumption of regularity includes the public officer’s official actuations in all phases of work.
Consistent with such presumption, it was incumbent upon petitioners to present contradictory
evidence other than a mere tallying of days or numerical calculation. This, petitioners failed to
discharge. The swift completion of the Investigating Panel’s initial task cannot be relegated as
shoddy or shady without discounting the presumably regular performance of not just one but five
state prosecutors.32 (italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Petitioner goes on to contend that her participation in the determination of sufficiency of form and
substance was indispensable. As mandated by the Impeachment Rules, however, and as, in fact,
conceded by petitioner’s counsel, the participation of the impeachable officer starts with the filing of
an answer.

JUSTICE MORALES:

Is it not that the Committee should first determine that there is sufficiency in form and
substance before she is asked to file her answer (interrupted)

JUSTICE CUEVAS:

That is correct, Your Honor.

JUSTICE MORALES:

During which she can raise any defenses she can assail the regularity of the proceedings and
related irregularities?

JUSTICE CUEVAS:

Yes. We are in total conformity and in full accord with that statement, Your Honor, because it is only
after a determination that the complaint is sufficient in form and substance that a complaint may be
filed, Your Honor, without that but it may be asked, how is not your action premature, Your Honor,
our answer is- no, because of the other violations involved and that is (interrupted).33 (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

Rule III(A) of the Impeachment Rules of the 15th Congress reflects the impeachment procedure at
the Committee-level, particularly Section 534 which denotes that petitioner’s initial participation in the
impeachment proceedings – the opportunity to file an Answer – starts after the Committee on Justice
finds the complaint sufficient in form and substance. That the Committee refused to accept
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration from its finding of sufficiency of form of the impeachment
complaints is apposite, conformably with the Impeachment Rules.

Petitioner further claims that public respondent failed to ascertain the sufficiency of form and
substance of the complaints on the basis of the standards set by the Constitution and its own
Impeachment Rules.35

The claim fails.

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.

Contrary to petitioner’s position that the Impeachment Rules do not provide for comprehensible
standards in determining the sufficiency of form and substance, the Impeachment Rules are clear in
echoing the constitutional requirements and providing that there must be a "verified complaint or
resolution,"36 and that the substance requirement is met if there is "a recital of facts constituting the
offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee."37

Notatu dignum is the fact that it is only in the Impeachment Rules where a determination of
sufficiency of form and substance of an impeachment complaint is made necessary. This
requirement is not explicitly found in the organic law, as Section 3(2), Article XI of the Constitution
basically merely requires a "hearing."38 In the discharge of its constitutional duty, the House deemed
that a finding of sufficiency of form and substance in an impeachment complaint is vital "to effectively
carry out" the impeachment process, hence, such additional requirement in the Impeachment Rules.

Petitioner urges the Court to look into the narration of facts constitutive of the offenses vis-à-vis her
submissions disclaiming the allegations in the complaints.

This the Court cannot do.

Francisco instructs that this issue would "require the Court to make a determination of what
constitutes an impeachable offense. Such a determination is a purely political question which the
Constitution has left to the sound discretion of the legislature. Such an intent is clear from the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. x x x x Clearly, the issue calls upon this court to
decide a non-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of its judicial power[.]"39 Worse,
petitioner urges the Court to make a preliminary assessment of certain grounds raised, upon a
hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the complaints, which involve matters of defense.

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.

To recall, days after the 15th Congress opened on July 26, 2010 or on August 3, 2010, public
respondent provisionally adopted the Impeachment Rules of the 14th Congress and thereafter
published on September 2, 2010 its Impeachment Rules, admittedly substantially identical with that
of the 14th Congress, in two newspapers of general circulation.40

Citing Tañada v. Tuvera,41 petitioner contends that she was deprived of due process since the
Impeachment Rules was published only on September 2, 2010 a day after public respondent ruled
on the sufficiency of form of the complaints. She likewise tacks her contention on Section 3(8),
Article XI of the Constitution which directs that "Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment
to effectively carry out the purpose of this section."

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."42

Differentiating Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and

Investigations43 which held that the Constitution categorically requires publication of the rules of
procedure in legislative inquiries, public respondent explains that the Impeachment Rules is intended
to merely enable Congress to effectively carry out the purpose of Section 3(8), Art. XI of
Constitution.
Black’s Law Dictionary broadly defines promulgate as

To publish; to announce officially; to make public as important or obligatory. The formal act of
announcing a statute or rule of court. An administrative order that is given to cause an agency law or
regulation to become known or obligatory.44 (emphasis supplied)

While "promulgation" would seem synonymous to "publication," there is a statutory difference in their
usage.

The Constitution notably uses the word "promulgate" 12 times.45 A number of those instances
involves the promulgation of various rules, reports and issuances emanating from Congress, this
Court, the Office of the Ombudsman as well as other constitutional offices.

To appreciate the statutory difference in the usage of the terms "promulgate" and "publish," the case
of the Judiciary is in point. In promulgating rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the Court has invariably required
the publication of these rules for their effectivity. As far as promulgation of judgments is concerned,
however, promulgation means "the delivery of the decision to the clerk of court for filing and
publication."46

Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution contains a similar provision directing Congress to
"promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates" in the presidential and vice presidential
elections. Notably, when Congress approved its canvassing rules for the May 14, 2010 national
elections on May 25, 2010,47 it did not require the publication thereof for its effectivity. Rather,
Congress made the canvassing rules effective upon its adoption.

In the case of administrative agencies, "promulgation" and "publication" likewise take on different
meanings as they are part of a multi-stage procedure in quasi-legislation. As detailed in one
case,48 the publication of implementing rules occurs after their promulgation or adoption.

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.49

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.

It is not for this Court to tell a co-equal branch of government how to promulgate when the
Constitution itself has not prescribed a specific method of promulgation. The Court is in no position
to dictate a mode of promulgation beyond the dictates of the Constitution.

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

x x x in the absence of constitutional or statutory guidelines or specific rules, this Court is devoid of
any basis upon which to determine the legality of the acts of the Senate relative thereto. On grounds
of respect for the basic concept of separation of powers, courts may not intervene in
the internal affairs of the legislature; it is not within the province of courts to direct Congress how to
do its work. In the words of Justice Florentino P. Feliciano, this Court is of the opinion that where no
specific, operable norms and standards are shown to exist, then the legislature must be given a real
and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate as well as to implement them, before the courts
may intervene.50 (italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

Had the Constitution intended to have the Impeachment Rules published, it could have stated so as
categorically as it did in the case of the rules of procedure in legislative inquiries, per Neri. Other
than "promulgate," there is no other single formal term in the English language to appropriately refer
to an issuance without need of it being published.

IN FINE, petitioner cannot take refuge in Neri since inquiries in aid of legislation under Section 21,
Article VI of the Constitution is the sole instance in the Constitution where there is a categorical
directive to duly publish a set of rules of procedure. Significantly notable in Neri is that with respect
to the issue of publication, the Court anchored its ruling on the 1987 Constitution’s directive, without
any reliance on or reference to the 1986 case of Tañada v. Tuvera.51 Tañada naturally could neither
have interpreted a forthcoming 1987 Constitution nor had kept a tight rein on the Constitution’s
intentions as expressed through the allowance of either a categorical term or a general sense of
making known the issuances.

From the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, then Commissioner, now retired Associate
Justice Florenz Regalado intended Section 3(8), Article XI to be the vehicle for the House to fill the
gaps in the impeachment process.

MR. REGALADO. Mr. Presiding Officer, I have decided to put in an additional section because, for
instance, under Section 3 (2), there is mention of indorsing a verified complaint for impeachment by
any citizen alleging ultimate facts constituting a ground or grounds for impeachment. In other words,
it is just like a provision in the rules of court. Instead, I propose that this procedural requirement, like
indorsement of a complaint by a citizen to avoid harassment or crank complaints, could very well be
taken up in a new section 4 which shall read as follows: THE CONGRESS SHALL PROMULGATE
ITS RULES ON IMPEACHMENT TO EFFECTIVELY CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES THEREOF. I
think all these other procedural requirements could be taken care of by the Rules of
Congress.52 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The discussion clearly rejects the notion that the impeachment provisions are not self-executing.
Section 3(8) does not, in any circumstance, operate to suspend the entire impeachment mechanism
which the Constitutional Commission took pains in designing even its details.

As against constitutions of the past, modern constitutions have been generally drafted upon a
different principle and have often become in effect extensive codes of laws intended to operate
directly upon the people in a manner similar to that of statutory enactments, and the function of
constitutional conventions has evolved into one more like that of a legislative body. Hence, unless it
is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If
the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the
legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental
law. This can be cataclysmic. That is why the prevailing view is, as it has always been, that —