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 13TH 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already been superseded by the Amended Complaint while the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.
 MOTION FOR RESOLUTION
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
See the Philippine Daily Inquirer report regarding this matter at
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=99072.
 MOTION FOR RESOLUTION
Martinez, et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al.
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
See the Philippine Daily Inquirer report regarding this matter at
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=99334.
5
Alunan vs. Mirasol, G.R. No. 108399, July 31, 1997.
 MOTION FOR RESOLUTION
Martinez, et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al.
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

Roll No. 36911
PTR No. 0310307, 01.10.07, Makati City
 MOTION FOR RESOLUTION
Martinez, et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al.
Page 5 of 6

IBP No. 500459, Makati City, Lifetime Member

ROGER R. RAYEL
Roll No. 44106
PTR No. 8676810, 02.05.07, Quezon City
IBP No. 02159, Lifetime Member

ROMEL REGALADO BAGARES

Roll No. 49518
PTR No. 0857623, 10.15.07, Makati City
IBP No. 725828, SocSarGen

CHRISTOPHER F.C. BOLASTIG

Roll No. 50862
PTR No. 0310310, 01.10.07, Makati City
IBP No. 702154, 01.11.07, Samar

DEXTER DONNE B. DIZON

Roll No. 54013
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

 MOTION FOR RESOLUTION
Martinez, et al. vs. House of Representatives, et al.
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