motion for resolution

Republic of the Philippines 

SUPREME COURT 

Manila 

REP. CLAVEL A. MARTINEZ, et al., 

Petitioners, 

- versus - G.R. No. 169561 

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

of the 13 TH CONGRESS, et al., 

Respondents. 

x--------------------------------------------------x 

MOTION FOR RESOLUTION 

Petitioners, by counsel, unto the Honorable Supreme Court, most 

respectfully state that: 

1. The instant Petition was filed before this Honorable Court on 23 

September 2005. 

2. The Petition sought the determination of the following issues, 

among others: 

a. Whether or not the House of Representatives in plenary 

committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of 

jurisdiction when it ratified by a vote of 158-51, the Decision of the 

Committee on Justice by majority vote, and as embodied in 

Committee Report 1012, to treat the Amended Complaint as 

separate and distinct from the Original Lozano Complaint, 

considering that the defective Original Lozano Complaint has 

already been superseded by the Amended Complaint while the 

Lopez Complaint, it being fraught with procedural and substantive 

infirmities, is of no legal effect. 

b. Whether or not the House of Representatives in plenary 

committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of 

jurisdiction when it ratified by a vote of 158-51, the Decision of the 

Committee on Justice by majority vote, and as embodied in 

Committee Report 1012, to dismiss the Amended Complaint as a 

prohibited pleading under the ruling in the Francisco case when it is 

clear under the Constitution and the various applicable rules of 

procedure, the one year constitutional bar does not apply. 1 

1 

Cf. Petition for Certiorari, at 22.


Martinez, et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al. 

Page 2 of 6 

3. In the meantime, Atty. Roel Pulido, on 05 October 2007, filed with 

the House of Representatives an Impeachment Complaint against the President 

of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (hereinafter referred to as the “Pulido 

Complaint”). 2 A copy of the news article reporting the filing of the said 

Impeachment Complaint is hereto attached as Annex “A”. 

4. On the other hand, Vice Governor of Ilioilo Rolex T. Suplico, joined 

by Atty. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., Angelito Banayo, Atty. Josefina T. Lichauco, Dr. 

Ma. Dominga Padilla, Fr. Joe Dizon, Dr. Ma. Serena I. Diokno, Dean Consuelo 

Joaquin Paz, Manuel Baviera and Roel Garcia, filed with the House of 

Representatives a Motion to File Supplemental Complaint with the Supplemental 

Impeachment Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the “Suplico Supplemental 

Complaint”) attached, on 05 November 2007. A copy of the Motion to File 

Supplemental Complaint and the Supplemental Impeachment Complaint are 

hereto attached as Annexes “B” and “B-1”, respectively. 

5. The Supplemental Impeachment Complaint was filed because of 

occurrences or events which have happened since the filing of the Impeachment 

Complaint against Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos, Jr. It is also 

seeking to add a new respondent, the President of the Philippines, Gloria 

Macapagal-Arroyo. 

6. Moreover, Atty. Adel Tamano, on even date, filed with the House of 

Representatives a Supplemental Impeachment Complaint against the President 

(hereinafter referred to as the “Tamano Supplemental Complaint”) to supplant the 

Pulido Complaint. 3 A copy of the news article reporting the filing of the Tamano 

Supplemental Complaint as well as the Suplico Supplemental Complaint is 

hereto attached as Annex “C”. 

2 

See the Philippine Daily Inquirer report regarding this matter at 

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=92849. 

3 


http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=99072.



Page 3 of 6 

7. However, in a letter dated 05 November 2007, signed by the 

Secretary General of the House of Representatives, Roberto P. Nazareno, the 

Suplico Supplemental Complaint was returned to the Complainants. A copy of the 

letter is hereto attached as Annex “D”. 

8. The Tamano Supplemental Complaint was similarly rejected by the 

Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives. 4 A copy of the news 

article reporting the rejection of the Tamano Supplemental Complaint as well as 

the Suplico Supplemental Complaint is hereto attached as Annex “E”. 

9. With this factual background, it is clear that the issues that have 

been raised in the instant Petition have resurfaced. Without a definite ruling on 

the issues raised in the instant Petition, the Supplemental Complaints are 

destined to take the path of the Amended Complaints subject of the instant 

Petition. 

10. The issues in the instant Petition are “capable of repetition yet 

evading review” 5 as in fact, these issues have re-emerged with the recent 

rejection of the Suplico and Tamano Supplemental Complaints. Thus, the 

Honorable Supreme Court must not shirk from its duty to settle these issues once 

and for all, for the guidance and peace of mind of all citizens. 

11. Also, considering the paramount public interest involved in the 

instant Petition, that is, the denial of the public’s Constitutional right to hold 

accountable a President accused of wrongdoing while in public office, the 

Supreme Court should not shun its responsibility to eradicate whatever 

obstruction that is preventing the public from the exercise of their rights. 

4 


http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=99334. 

5 

Alunan vs. Mirasol, G.R. No. 108399, July 31, 1997.



Page 4 of 6 

12. Moreover, the records of this case show that the issues have long 

been joined. Thus, Petitioners have filed their Consolidated Reply to the 

Comment to the Petition filed by the House of Representatives on 15 December 

2005 and the Comment to the Petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General 

on 16 January 2006. 

13. Thus, Petitioners humbly beseech the Honorable Supreme Court to 

take immediate action regarding the instant matter. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that 

the instant Petition be resolved immediately and that a judgment be rendered 

declaring the patent unconstitutionality of the questioned acts. 

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for. 

Makati City for the City of Manila, 08 November 2007. 

ROQUE AND BUTUYAN LAW OFFICES 

Counsel for Petitioners 

Unit 1904 Antel 2000 Corporate Center 

121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village 

Makati City 

02 887 4445/02 887 3894 

administration@roquebutuyan.com 

By: 

H. HARRY L ROQUE, JR. 

Roll No. 36976 

PTR No. 0310306, 01.10.07, Makati City 

IBP No. 499912, Makati City, Lifetime Member 

JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN 


PTR No. 0310307, 01.10.07, Makati City



Page 5 of 6 

IBP No. 500459, Makati City, Lifetime Member 

ROGER R. RAYEL 


PTR No. 8676810, 02.05.07, Quezon City 

IBP No. 02159, Lifetime Member 

ROMEL REGALADO BAGARES 



IBP No. 725828, SocSarGen 

CHRISTOPHER F.C. BOLASTIG 



IBP No. 702154, 01.11.07, Samar 

DEXTER DONNE B. DIZON 


PTR No. 9196377, 06.26.07, Quezon City 

IBP No. 717896, 04.13.07, Laguna 

Copy furnished: 

THE HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL 

134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village 

Makati City 1229 

ATTY. LEONARDO B. PALICTE III 

Chief Counsel and Deputy Secretary General 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATTIVES 

LEGAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT 

Batasan Complex, 

National Government Center 

Quezon City 

ATTY. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. 

Francisco Law Office 

(Counsel for Petitioner in G.R. No. 169697) 

Unit 201 Liberty Building 

835 A. Arnaiz Avenue (Pasay Road) 

Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City 

ATTYS. JOSE LUIS MARTIN GASCON & 

ROBERTO EUGENIO T. CADIZ 

(Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 169751) 

1602-A West Trade Center 

132 West Avenue, Quezon City 

EXPLANATION ON SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL



Page 6 of 6 

This Motion is being served on the parties by registered mail due to 

distance, time constraint and lack of messengerial services. 

DEXTER DONNE B. DIZON

motion for resolution

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?