Francisco Vs House of Representatives

Francisco vs House of Representatives
Facts:
1. On 28 November 2001, the 12th Congress of the House of

Representatives adopted and approved the Rules of Procedure in
Impeachment Proceedings, superseding the previous House Impeachment
Rules approved by the 11th Congress.
2. On 22 July 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution,
which directed the Committee on Justice “to conduct an investigation, in aid
of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
3. On 2 June 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment
complaint (first impeachment complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of the Supreme Court for “culpable
violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high
crimes.” The complaint was endorsed by House Representatives, and was
referred to the House Committee on Justice on 5 August 2003 in accordance
with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. The House Committee on
Justice ruled on 13 October 2003 that the first impeachment complaint was
“sufficient in form,” but voted to dismiss the same on 22 October 2003 for
being insufficient in substance.
4. The following day or on 23 October 2003, the second impeachment
complaint was filed with the Secretary General of the House by House
Representatives against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the
alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House
Resolution. The second impeachment complaint was accompanied by a
“Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by at least 1/3 of all the
Members of the House of Representatives.
5. Various petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed with
the Supreme Court against the House of Representatives, et. al., most of
which petitions contend that the filing of the second impeachment complaint
is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the
Constitution that “[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the
same official more than once within a period of one year.”
Issues:
1. Whether or not the offenses alleged in the Second impeachment

complaint constitute valid impeachable offenses under the Constitution.
2. Whether or not Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on
Impeachment adopted by the 12th Congress are unconstitutional for violating
the provisions of Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution.
3. Whether the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3(5)
of Article XI of the Constitution.

Rulings:
1. This issue is a non-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope

of the judicial power of the Supreme Court under Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution.
1. Any discussion of this issue would require the Court to make a
determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Such a
determination is a purely political question which the Constitution has left
to the sound discretion of the legislation. Such an intent is clear from the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.
2. Courts will not touch the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly
unavoidable and is the very lis mota or crux of the controversy.
2. The Rule of Impeachment adopted by the House of Congress is
unconstitutional.
1. Section 3 of Article XI provides that “The Congress shall
promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose
of this section.” Clearly, its power to promulgate its rules on impeachment
is limited by the phrase “to effectively carry out the purpose of this
section.” Hence, these rules cannot contravene the very purpose of the
Constitution which said rules were intended to effectively carry out.
Moreover, Section 3 of Article XI clearly provides for other specific
limitations on its power to make rules.
2. It is basic that all rules must not contravene the Constitution which
is the fundamental law. If as alleged Congress had absolute rule making
power, then it would by necessary implication have the power to alter or
amend the meaning of the Constitution without need of referendum.
3. It falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution.
1. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing
of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on
Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of
Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been
initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the
same official within a one year period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of
the Constitution.
2. Considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed by
former President Estrada against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along
with seven associate justices of this Court, on June 2, 2003 and referred to
the House Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003, the second
impeachment complaint filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr.
and Felix William Fuentebella against the Chief Justice on October 23, 2003
violates the constitutional prohibition against the initiation of impeachment
proceedings against the same impeachable officer within a one-year
period.

Hence, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment
Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representatives on November
28, 2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment complaint
against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which was filed by Representatives
Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with the Office of the
Secretary General of the House of Representatives on October 23, 2003 is barred
under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.
“Initiate” of course is understood by ordinary men to mean, as dictionaries do, to

begin, to commence, or set going. As Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language concisely puts it, it means “to perform or
facilitate the first action,” The Court pried the Constitutional Convention Records
to ascertain the intent of the framers of the Constitution. The framers really
intended “initiate” to mean the filing of the verified complaint to the Committee
on Justice of the Lower House. This is also based on the procedure of the U.S.
Congress where an impeachment is initiated upon filing of the impeachment
complaint.
2. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the
initial action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes
clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing
manner, another may not be filed against the same official within a one year
period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

Francisco Vs House of Representatives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Francisco Vs House of Representatives

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Francisco Vs House of Representatives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Francisco vs House of Representatives

1. On 28 November 2001, the 12th Congress of the House of

1. Whether or not the offenses alleged in the Second impeachment

1. This issue is a non-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope

“Initiate” of course is understood by ordinary men to mean, as dictionaries do, to

You might also like