G.R. No. 187714: March 8, 2011
In this case, Senator Madrigal is not an
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., et al., Petitioner, v. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE,
Respondent.
FACTS:
On 8 October 2008, Senator Madrigal introduced P.S. Resolution 706, which directed
the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate the alleged double insertion of P200
million by Senator Manny Villar into the C5 Extension Project. After the election of
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile as Senate President, the Ethics Committee was
reorganized, but the Minority failed to name its representatives to the Committee,
prompting a delay in the investigation. Thereafter, the Senate adopted the Rules of
the Ethics Committee.
In another privilege speech, Senator Villar stated he will answer the accusations
before the Senate, and not with the Ethics Committee. Senator Lacson, then
chairperson of the Ethics Committee, then moved that the responsibility of the Ethics
Committee be transferred to the Senate as a Committee of the Whole, which was
approved by the majority. In the hearings of such Committee, petitioners objected to
the application of the Rules of the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the
Whole. They also questioned the quorum, and proposed amendments to the Rules.
Senator Pimentel raised the issue on the need to publish the rules of the Senate
Committee of the Whole.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Senator Madrigal, who filed the complaint against Senator Villar, is an
indispensable party in this petition;
2. Whether the petition is premature for failure to observe the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction or prior resort;
3. Whether the transfer of the complaint against Senator Villar from the Ethics
Committee to the Senate Committee of the Whole is violative of Senator Villar's
right to equal protection;
4. Whether the adoption of the Rules of the Ethics Committee as Rules of the Senate
Committee of the Whole is violative of Senator Villar's right to due process and of the
majority quorum requirement under Art. VI, Section 16(2) of the Constitution; and
5. Whether publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole is required
for their effectivity.
HELD:
REMEDIAL LAW
First issue: An indispensable party is a party who has an interest in the controversy or
subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without
injuring or affecting that interest.
indispensable party to the petition before the Court. While it may be true that she has
an interest in the outcome of this case as the author of P.S. Resolution 706, the
issues in this case are matters of jurisdiction and procedure on the part of the Senate
Committee of the Whole which can be resolved without affecting Senator Madrigal's
interest.
Second issue: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply to this case. The
issues presented here do not require the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge
of respondent for their resolution. On the contrary, the issues here are purely legal
questions which are within the competence and jurisdiction of the Court.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Third issue: While ordinarily an investigation about one of its members alleged
irregular or unethical conduct is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee, the
Minority effectively prevented it from pursuing the investigation when they refused to
nominate their members to the Ethics Committee. The referral of the investigation to
the Committee of the Whole was an extraordinary remedy undertaken by the Ethics
Committee and approved by a majority of the members of the Senate, and not
violative of the right to equal protection.
Fourth issue: The adoption by the Senate Committee of the Whole of the Rules of the
Ethics Committee does not violate Senator Villar's right to due process. The
Constitutional right of the Senate to promulgate its own rules of proceedings has been
recognized and affirmed by this Court in Section 16(3), Article VI of the Philippine
Constitution, which states: "Each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings."
Fifth: The Constitution does not require publication of the internal rules of the House
or Senate. Since rules of the House or the Senate that affect only their members are
internal to the House or Senate, such rules need not be published,unless such rules
expressly provide for their publication before the rules can take effect. Hence, in this
particular case, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole itself provide that
the Rules must be published before the Rules can take effect. Thus, even if
publication is not required under the Constitution, publication of the Rules of the
Senate Committee of the Whole is required because the Rules expressly mandate
their publication.
PARTIALLY GRANTED
Evelyn Abeja vs Federico Taada
236 SCRA 60 Law on Public Officers Public Office is Personal to the Incumbent
In 1992, Rosauro Radovan was declared the winner of the mayoralty elections in
Pagbilao, Quezon. His rival, Evelyn Abeja, filed an election protest where she
questioned the results in 22 precincts. Radovan filed a counter protest where he
questioned the results in 36 precincts with counterclaim for damages. Abeja then
caused the revision of the ballots covering the 22 precincts and paid the expenses
therefor. Abeja then urged Radovan to cause the revision of the 36 precincts he is
questioning. Radovan however refused and so Abeja filed a motion that a judgment
be rendered based on the results from the 22 precincts. The original judge did not rule
on the motion before he was transferred. Before the judge could be replaced,
Radovan died. Radovan was then substituted by the vice mayor (Conrado de Rama)
and Radovans wife, Ediltrudes. Ediltrudes substituted his deceased husband insofar
as the latters counterclaim for damages is concerned.
In 1993, the new judge, Federico Taada ruled that Abejas motion is premature
because the 36 precincts are not yet revised. Taada agreed with Radovan that the
36 precincts may only be revised if Abeja can show that she (Abeja) leads by at least
one point vote over Radovan.
ISSUE: Whether or not the judge is correct.
HELD: No. There is no rule in election protests cases which states that a protestant
(Abeja) must first show that she won in the precincts she is contesting before
evidence on the protestees (Radovan) counter-protest can be had. This will render
the protestants case to be at the mercy of the protestee who can just prolong the
case until his term is over.
Also, the Supreme Court ruled that the substitution of Ediltrudes for her deceased
husband is erroneous. This is notwithstanding the counter-claim for damages in the
counter protest. Public office is personal to the incumbent and is not a property which
passes to his heirs. The heirs may no longer prosecute the deceased protestees
counter-claim for damages against the protestant for that was extinguished when
death terminated his right to occupy the contested office.