G R - No

8/13/2017 G.R. No.
71908
In G.R. No. L71688 filed on August 17, 1985, Arturo M. de Castro and Perfecto L. Cagampang, claiming to be
members of good standing of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and taxpayers, filed a petition with this Court for
certiorari to annul the resolution of the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government, the very same
resolution subject of the present petition, dismissing the complaint for the impeachment of the President of the
Philippines signed by the petitioners in the present case, and mandamus to compel said Committee on Justice and
the Batasan, represented by its Speaker, to give due course to said complaint for impeachment. In denying due
course to said petition and dismissing outright the same, We held:
1. The l973 Constitution has vested in the Batasan Pambansa the exclusive power to initiate, try and decide all cases
of impeachment. The action of the Committee on Justice of the Batasan to whom the complaint for the impeachment
of the President had been referred dismissing said petition for being insufficient in form and substance involves a
political question not cognizable by the Courts. The dismissal of said petition is within the ambit of the powers vested
exclusively in the Batasan by express provision of Sec. 2, Article XIII of the Constitution and it is not within the
competence of this Court to inquire whether in the exercise of said power the Batasan acted wisely. There is no
allegation in the petition for certiorari that in the exercise of its powers the Batasan had violated any provision of the
Constitution. The fact that the Committee on Justice dismissed the petition on the same day it was filed after
deliberating on it for several hours as reported in the newspapers, radio and television (which must have been the
basis of petitioners' claim that the Committee had acted with undue haste in unceremoniously dismissing the
complaint for impeachment) does not provide basis for concluding that there had been a violation of any provision of
the Constitution which would justify the Court's intervention to ensure proper observance of constitutional norms and
conduct. Beyond saying that the Batasan may initiate impeachment by a vote of at least onefifth of all its Members
and that no official shall be convicted without the concurrence of at least twothirds of all the members thereof, the
Constitution says no more. It does not lay down the procedure to be followed in impeachment proceedings. It is up to
the Batasan to enact its own rules of procedure in said impeachment proceedings, which it had already done, The
interpretation and application of said rules are beyond the powers of the Court to review. The powers of the Batasan
to dismiss a petition for impeachment which in its judgment it finds not meritorious or defective in form and substance
are discretionary in nature and, therefore, not subject to judicial compulsion.
2. The doctrine of separation of powers still exists under the 1973 Constitution though in a modified form made
necessary because of the adoption of certain aspects of the parliamentary system in the amended 1973 Constitution.
The major powers of the Government have been distributed by the Constitution to the President, who is the head of
the State and chief executive of the Republic, the Batasan Pambansa and the Judiciary. Under the doctrine of
separation of Powers as interpreted by the decisions of the Court, mandamus will not he from one branch of the
government to a coordinate branch to compel performance of duties within the latter's sphere of responsibility. More
specifically, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus against the Batasan to compel it to give due course to the
complaint for impeachment. 1
We did not dismiss outright the present petition as We did G.R. No. L71688 but required respondents to comment
thereto in view of the claim of petitioners that the provisions of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings,
more specifically Sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 pursuant to which the Batasan Committee on Justice, Human Rights and
Good Government had dismissed Resolution No. 644 and the complaint for the impeachment attached thereto are
unconstitutional, implying thereby that the Batasan or the Committee thereof had, in the exercise of powers vested
upon it by the Constitution, transgressed or violated the Constitution, certainly a justiciable question.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/feb1986/gr_71908_1986.html 1/1

G R - No

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G R - No

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G R - No

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/13/2017 G.R. No.

You might also like