motion for resolution
motion for resolution
motion for resolution
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Republic of the Philippines<br />
SUPREME COURT<br />
Manila<br />
REP. CLAVEL A. MARTINEZ, et al.,<br />
Petitioners,<br />
- versus - G.R. No. 169561<br />
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES<br />
of the 13 TH CONGRESS, et al.,<br />
Respondents.<br />
x--------------------------------------------------x<br />
MOTION FOR RESOLUTION<br />
Petitioners, by counsel, unto the Honorable Supreme Court, most<br />
respectfully state that:<br />
1. The instant Petition was filed be<strong>for</strong>e this Honorable Court on 23<br />
September 2005.<br />
2. The Petition sought the determination of the following issues,<br />
among others:<br />
a. Whether or not the House of Representatives in plenary<br />
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of<br />
jurisdiction when it ratified by a vote of 158-51, the Decision of the<br />
Committee on Justice by majority vote, and as embodied in<br />
Committee Report 1012, to treat the Amended Complaint as<br />
separate and distinct from the Original Lozano Complaint,<br />
considering that the defective Original Lozano Complaint has<br />
already been superseded by the Amended Complaint while the<br />
Lopez Complaint, it being fraught with procedural and substantive<br />
infirmities, is of no legal effect.<br />
b. Whether or not the House of Representatives in plenary<br />
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of<br />
jurisdiction when it ratified by a vote of 158-51, the Decision of the<br />
Committee on Justice by majority vote, and as embodied in<br />
Committee Report 1012, to dismiss the Amended Complaint as a<br />
prohibited pleading under the ruling in the Francisco case when it is<br />
clear under the Constitution and the various applicable rules of<br />
procedure, the one year constitutional bar does not apply. 1<br />
1<br />
Cf. Petition <strong>for</strong> Certiorari, at 22.
MOTION FOR RESOLUTION<br />
Martinez, et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al.<br />
Page 2 of 6<br />
3. In the meantime, Atty. Roel Pulido, on 05 October 2007, filed with<br />
the House of Representatives an Impeachment Complaint against the President<br />
of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (hereinafter referred to as the “Pulido<br />
Complaint”). 2 A copy of the news article reporting the filing of the said<br />
Impeachment Complaint is hereto attached as Annex “A”.<br />
4. On the other hand, Vice Governor of Ilioilo Rolex T. Suplico, joined<br />
by Atty. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., Angelito Banayo, Atty. Josefina T. Lichauco, Dr.<br />
Ma. Dominga Padilla, Fr. Joe Dizon, Dr. Ma. Serena I. Diokno, Dean Consuelo<br />
Joaquin Paz, Manuel Baviera and Roel Garcia, filed with the House of<br />
Representatives a Motion to File Supplemental Complaint with the Supplemental<br />
Impeachment Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the “Suplico Supplemental<br />
Complaint”) attached, on 05 November 2007. A copy of the Motion to File<br />
Supplemental Complaint and the Supplemental Impeachment Complaint are<br />
hereto attached as Annexes “B” and “B-1”, respectively.<br />
5. The Supplemental Impeachment Complaint was filed because of<br />
occurrences or events which have happened since the filing of the Impeachment<br />
Complaint against Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos, Jr. It is also<br />
seeking to add a new respondent, the President of the Philippines, Gloria<br />
Macapagal-Arroyo.<br />
6. Moreover, Atty. Adel Tamano, on even date, filed with the House of<br />
Representatives a Supplemental Impeachment Complaint against the President<br />
(hereinafter referred to as the “Tamano Supplemental Complaint”) to supplant the<br />
Pulido Complaint. 3 A copy of the news article reporting the filing of the Tamano<br />
Supplemental Complaint as well as the Suplico Supplemental Complaint is<br />
hereto attached as Annex “C”.<br />
2<br />
See the Philippine Daily Inquirer report regarding this matter at<br />
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=92849.<br />
3<br />
See the Philippine Daily Inquirer report regarding this matter at<br />
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=99072.
MOTION FOR RESOLUTION<br />
Martinez, et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al.<br />
Page 3 of 6<br />
7. However, in a letter dated 05 November 2007, signed by the<br />
Secretary General of the House of Representatives, Roberto P. Nazareno, the<br />
Suplico Supplemental Complaint was returned to the Complainants. A copy of the<br />
letter is hereto attached as Annex “D”.<br />
8. The Tamano Supplemental Complaint was similarly rejected by the<br />
Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives. 4 A copy of the news<br />
article reporting the rejection of the Tamano Supplemental Complaint as well as<br />
the Suplico Supplemental Complaint is hereto attached as Annex “E”.<br />
9. With this factual background, it is clear that the issues that have<br />
been raised in the instant Petition have resurfaced. Without a definite ruling on<br />
the issues raised in the instant Petition, the Supplemental Complaints are<br />
destined to take the path of the Amended Complaints subject of the instant<br />
Petition.<br />
10. The issues in the instant Petition are “capable of repetition yet<br />
evading review” 5 as in fact, these issues have re-emerged with the recent<br />
rejection of the Suplico and Tamano Supplemental Complaints. Thus, the<br />
Honorable Supreme Court must not shirk from its duty to settle these issues once<br />
and <strong>for</strong> all, <strong>for</strong> the guidance and peace of mind of all citizens.<br />
11. Also, considering the paramount public interest involved in the<br />
instant Petition, that is, the denial of the public’s Constitutional right to hold<br />
accountable a President accused of wrongdoing while in public office, the<br />
Supreme Court should not shun its responsibility to eradicate whatever<br />
obstruction that is preventing the public from the exercise of their rights.<br />
4<br />
See the Philippine Daily Inquirer report regarding this matter at<br />
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=99334.<br />
5<br />
Alunan vs. Mirasol, G.R. No. 108399, July 31, 1997.
MOTION FOR RESOLUTION<br />
Martinez, et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al.<br />
Page 4 of 6<br />
12. Moreover, the records of this case show that the issues have long<br />
been joined. Thus, Petitioners have filed their Consolidated Reply to the<br />
Comment to the Petition filed by the House of Representatives on 15 December<br />
2005 and the Comment to the Petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General<br />
on 16 January 2006.<br />
13. Thus, Petitioners humbly beseech the Honorable Supreme Court to<br />
take immediate action regarding the instant matter.<br />
PRAYER<br />
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that<br />
the instant Petition be resolved immediately and that a judgment be rendered<br />
declaring the patent unconstitutionality of the questioned acts.<br />
Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed <strong>for</strong>.<br />
Makati City <strong>for</strong> the City of Manila, 08 November 2007.<br />
ROQUE AND BUTUYAN LAW OFFICES<br />
Counsel <strong>for</strong> Petitioners<br />
Unit 1904 Antel 2000 Corporate Center<br />
121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village<br />
Makati City<br />
02 887 4445/02 887 3894<br />
administration@roquebutuyan.com<br />
By:<br />
H. HARRY L ROQUE, JR.<br />
Roll No. 36976<br />
PTR No. 0310306, 01.10.07, Makati City<br />
IBP No. 499912, Makati City, Lifetime Member<br />
JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN<br />
Roll No. 36911<br />
PTR No. 0310307, 01.10.07, Makati City
MOTION FOR RESOLUTION<br />
Martinez, et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al.<br />
Page 5 of 6<br />
IBP No. 500459, Makati City, Lifetime Member<br />
ROGER R. RAYEL<br />
Roll No. 44106<br />
PTR No. 8676810, 02.05.07, Quezon City<br />
IBP No. 02159, Lifetime Member<br />
ROMEL REGALADO BAGARES<br />
Roll No. 49518<br />
PTR No. 0857623, 10.15.07, Makati City<br />
IBP No. 725828, SocSarGen<br />
CHRISTOPHER F.C. BOLASTIG<br />
Roll No. 50862<br />
PTR No. 0310310, 01.10.07, Makati City<br />
IBP No. 702154, 01.11.07, Samar<br />
DEXTER DONNE B. DIZON<br />
Roll No. 54013<br />
PTR No. 9196377, 06.26.07, Quezon City<br />
IBP No. 717896, 04.13.07, Laguna<br />
Copy furnished:<br />
THE HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL<br />
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village<br />
Makati City 1229<br />
ATTY. LEONARDO B. PALICTE III<br />
Chief Counsel and Deputy Secretary General<br />
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATTIVES<br />
LEGAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT<br />
Batasan Complex,<br />
National Government Center<br />
Quezon City<br />
ATTY. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.<br />
Francisco Law Office<br />
(Counsel <strong>for</strong> Petitioner in G.R. No. 169697)<br />
Unit 201 Liberty Building<br />
835 A. Arnaiz Avenue (Pasay Road)<br />
Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City<br />
ATTYS. JOSE LUIS MARTIN GASCON &<br />
ROBERTO EUGENIO T. CADIZ<br />
(Counsel <strong>for</strong> Petitioners in G.R. No. 169751)<br />
1602-A West Trade Center<br />
132 West Avenue, Quezon City<br />
EXPLANATION ON SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL
MOTION FOR RESOLUTION<br />
Martinez, et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al.<br />
Page 6 of 6<br />
This Motion is being served on the parties by registered mail due to<br />
distance, time constraint and lack of messengerial services.<br />
DEXTER DONNE B. DIZON