Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.
160261, November 10, 2003
FACTS
 On June 2, 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 this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high
crimes." The complaint was endorsed by Representatives Rolex T. Suplico, Ronaldo B. Zamora
and Didagen Piang Dilangalen, and was referred to the House Committee on Justice on August 5,
2003.
 The House Committee on Justice ruled that the first impeachment complaint was "sufficient in
form," but voted to dismiss the same on for being insufficient in substance.
 A day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment
complaint was filed with the Secretary General of the House12 by Representatives Gilberto C.
Teodoro, Jr. (First District, Tarlac) and Felix William B. Fuentebella (Third District, Camarines Sur)
against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry.
This second impeachment complaint was accompanied by a "Resolution of
Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of
Representatives.
 Thus arose the instant petitions totaling to 18 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."
 Respondent argues that Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules do not
violate Section 3 (5) of Article XI of our present Constitution, contending that the term "initiate"
does not mean "to file;" They concluded that the one year ban prohibiting the initiation of
impeachment proceedings against the same officials could not have been violated as the
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide and seven Associate Justices had not been
initiated as the House of Representatives, acting as the collective body, has yet to act on it.
ISSUE
Whether the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr. with the House of Representatives falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution, and
whether the resolution thereof is a political question – has resulted in a political crisis.
STATUTE IN QUESTION
ARTICLE XI, SECTION 3

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within
a period of one year.
RULE V (12TH CONGRESS NEW RULES)

BAR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT
Section 16. – Impeachment Proceedings Deemed Initiated. – In cases where a Member of the
House files a verified complaint of impeachment or a citizen files a verified complaint that is
endorsed by a Member of the House through a resolution of endorsement against an impeachable
officer, impeachment proceedings against such official are deemed initiated on the day the
Committee on Justice finds that the verified complaint and/or resolution against such official, as the
case may be, is sufficient in substance, or on the date the House votes to overturn or affirm the
finding of the said Committee that the verified complaint and/or resolution, as the case may be, is
not sufficient in substance.
Section 17. Bar Against Initiation Of Impeachment Proceedings. – Within a period of one (1) year
from the date impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated as provided in Section 16 hereof, no
impeachment proceedings, as such, can be initiated against the same official. (Italics in the
original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
RULING
 Using statutory construction, the courts interpret the law by looking into its intent by referring again
to its deliberation. It is thus clear that the framers intended "initiation" to start with the filing of the
complaint and the vote of one-third of the House in a resolution of impeachment does not initiate
the impeachment proceedings which was already initiated by the filing of a verified complaint under
Section 3, paragraph (2), Article XI of the Constitution."
 Father Bernas concludes that when Section 3 (5) says, "No impeachment proceeding shall be
initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year," it means that no
second verified complaint may be accepted and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. By
his explanation, this interpretation is founded on the common understanding of the meaning of "to
initiate" which means to begin.
 WHEREFORE, 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. 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.

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.

160261, November 10, 2003

ARTICLE XI, SECTION 3

RULE V (12TH CONGRESS NEW RULES)

You might also like