Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-13954 August 12, 1959

GENARO GERONA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants,


vs.
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

FACTS:

petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for immediate issuance of
temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction filed by the former
Chief Justice of this Court, Renato C. Corona, assailing the impeachment case initiated
by the respondent Members of the House of Representatives (HOR) and trial being
conducted by respondent Senate of the Philippines.

A caucus was held by the majority bloc of the HOR during which a verified
complaint for impeachment against petitioner was submitted by the leadership of the
Committee on Justice. After a brief presentation, on the same day, the complaint was
voted in session and 188 Members signed and endorsed it, way above the one-third
vote required by the Constitution.

Petitioner received a copy of the complaint charging him with culpable violation of
the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and graft and corruption, allegedly committed.

As to the charges against him, petitioner denied the same but admitted having
once served the Offices of the President and Vice-President during the term of former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

He prayed for the outright dismissal of the complaint for failing to meet the
requirements of the Constitution or that the Impeachment Court enter a judgment of
acquittal for all the articles of impeachment.

ISSUE:

WHETHER RESPONDENTS COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION


OR GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
FUNCTIONS AND PREROGATIVES THAT COULD TRANSLATE AS LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE CORRECTIVE MEASURES
FROM THE COURT.

RULING:
We ruled that the power of judicial review in this jurisdiction includes the power of
review over justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings.

Subsequently, in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, 17 the


Court resolved the question of the validity of the simultaneous referral of two
impeachment complaints against petitioner Ombudsman which was allegedly a violation
of the due process clause and of the one-year bar provision.

In the meantime, the impeachment trial had been concluded with the conviction of
petitioner by more than the required majority vote of the Senator-Judges. Petitioner
immediately accepted the verdict and without any protest vacated his office

Unarguably, the constitutional issue raised by petitioner had been mooted by


supervening events and his own acts.

An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable
controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and
value.18 In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would
be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.

You might also like