Pimentel, Jr. vs. Senate Committee of the Whole | G.R. No.

187714 | March 8, 2011 | Ponente:

Carpio, J.

Nature of Case: Discipline of Members

Petitioners: AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., MANUEL B. VILLAR, JOKER P. ARROYO, FRANCIS N.
PANGILINAN, PIA S. CAYETANO, and ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO
Respondents: SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE represented by SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN
PONCE ENRILE

Summary: Pimentel, Jr. et al. filed a petition for prohibition seeking to enjoin the respondent
from conducting further hearings on the complaint on the alleged double for the C-5 Road
Extension Project.
Doctrine: Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

FACTS:
 Sept. 15, 2008: Senator Lacson called attention to the congressional insertion in the
2008 General Appropriations Act, particularly the Php200 million appropriated for the
extension of the Carlos P. Garcia Avenue including Right-of-Way (ROW), and another
Php200 million appropriated for the extension of C-5 including ROW.
o According to Lacson, these roads are one and the same. It was found that the
double insertion was on account of a congressional insertion by Senator Villar,
who was then Senate President.
 Oct. 8, 2008: Senator Madrigal introduced P.S. Resolution 706, which directed the
Committe on Ethics and Privileges to investigate the Conduct of the Senate President
based on the following findings:
o That Villar was responsible for the double insertion.
o That Villar realigned the C-5 extension to ensure that the government would
have to buy his properties to be able to continue the project
o That Villar used his power and influence to extort profit from original
landowners
o That his acts directly violate the Constitution, the Anti-Graft and Corruption
Practices Act, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officers
 Nov. 17, 2008: Enrile was elected Senate President. The Ethics Committee was
reorganized, with Lacson as its Chairperson.
 March 23, 2009: Publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee on Ethics and
Privileges in the Official Gazette.
 April 27, 2009: Lacson moved that the Senate act as the Committee of the Whole and
undertake the responsibility of the Ethics Committee, since the latter was accused of not
being able to act with fairness on Villar's case. The motion was approved.
 May 2009:
o Hearings were conducted. Petitioners objected to the application of Rules of the
Senate Committee on Ethics to the Senate Committee of the Whole. 3 of 11
amendments to the Rules of the Ethics Committee were adopted.
o Sen. Pimentel raised as an issue the need to publish the proposed amended
Rules.
 o Respondent proceeded with the Preliminary Investigation on P.S. Resolution
706, and declared that there was substantial evidence to proceed with the
adjudicatory hearing.

ISSUES + RULING
1. WON Senator Madrigal, who filed the complaint against Sen. Villar, is an indispensable
party in this petition: NO.
 An indispensable party, as defined in Lagunilla v. Velasco:
o one who has an interest in the controversy that a final adjudication cannot
be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest
o a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination which is
effective, complete or equitable.
 While Madrigal has an interest as the author of P.S. Res. 706, the issues here are
matters of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate Committee of the Whole. They can
be resolved without affecting Madrigal’s interest.
2. WON the petition is premature for failure to observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
or prior resort: NO
 Doctrine of primary jurisdiction: that administrative questions, which are
ordinarily questions of fact, be determined by administrative agencies and NOT
courts of justice
 Issues presented here are purely legal questions, which are within the
jurisdiction of the court, and not an administrative agency or the Senate.
3. WON the transfer from the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the Whole is
violative of Villar’s right to equal protection: NO
 Villar gave a privilege speech on April 20, 2009, where he stated that he would
answer the accusations on the floor and NOT before the Ethics Committee
because of the accusation that the latter could not act fairly on his case.
 An investigation about one of its members' conduct is usually within the
jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee, but because of the refusal of the Minority
to nominate members to this, they were prevented from investigating.
 The referral to the Committee of the Whole was an extraordinary remedy but it
had to be done. (Also, Senate-approved.)
4. WON 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) [I think this is a typo. Should
be 16(3).] of the Constitution: NO
 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.
 Section 16(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution: “Each House shall determine
the rules of its proceedings."
 Limitations to this are the observance of quorum, voting, and publication when
required. As long as these are complied with, the Court will not interfere with
the Congress’s right to amend its own rules.
5. WON publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole is required for their
effectivity: YES
  The Constitution does NOT require publication of the internal rules of the House or
the Senate since they affect only their members. (Exception: when such rules
expressly provide for their publication before the rules can take effect.)
 The Rules of the Committee of the Whole are internal to the Senate, BUT
Section 81, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole
expressly mandates their publication:
 "These Rules shall be effective after publication in the Official Gazette
or in a newspaper of general circulation."
 Even though the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole were merely
adopted from the Rules of the Ethics Committee which had been published
before, the Senate must still comply with their own internal rule.

FINAL RULING: The petition is granted in part. The referral of the complaint by the Committee
on Ethics and Privileges to the Senate Committee of the Whole shall take effect only upon
publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole.