II B. Pimentel V Senate

Pimentel v.
Senate Committee of the Whole
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. In this case, Senator Madrigal is not an 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

II B. Pimentel V Senate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

II B. Pimentel V Senate

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

II B. Pimentel V Senate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pimentel v.

Senate Committee of the Whole

You might also like