Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit Na Mga Manananggol NG Mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., 415 SCRA 44, November 10, 2003

    Uploaded by

    Charlyn Sabio
    The Supreme Court ruled that the second impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. on October 23, 2003 was unconstitutional. The Constitution prohibits the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a period of one year. As the first impeachment complaint against Davide was filed in June 2003 and dismissed in October 2003, the second complaint violated this one-year prohibition. The Court also ruled that Sections 16 and 17 of the House Rules of Procedure, which defined how impeachment proceedings are initiated, were unconstitutional as they contradicted the constitutional definition of initiating impeachment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit Na Mga Manananggol NG Mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., 415 SCRA 44, November 10, 2003

    Uploaded by

    Charlyn Sabio
    37 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the second impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. on October 23, 2003 was unconstitutional. The Constitution prohibits the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a period of one year. As the first impeachment complaint against Davide was filed in June 2003 and dismissed in October 2003, the second complaint violated this one-year prohibition. The Court also ruled that Sections 16 and 17 of the House Rules of Procedure, which defined how impeachment proceedings are initiated, were unconstitutional as they contradicted the constitutional definition of initiating impeachment.

    Original Title

    Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., 415 SCRA 44, November 10, 2003

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the second impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. on October 23, 2003 was unconstitutional. The Constitution prohibits the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a period of one year. As the first impeachment complaint against Davide was filed in June 2003 and dismissed in October 2003, the second complaint violated this one-year prohibition. The Court also ruled that Sections 16 and 17 of the House Rules of Procedure, which defined how impeachment proceedings are initiated, were unconstitutional as they contradicted the constitutional definition of initiating impeachment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views3 pages

    Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit Na Mga Manananggol NG Mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., 415 SCRA 44, November 10, 2003

    Uploaded by

    Charlyn Sabio
    The Supreme Court ruled that the second impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. on October 23, 2003 was unconstitutional. The Constitution prohibits the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a period of one year. As the first impeachment complaint against Davide was filed in June 2003 and dismissed in October 2003, the second complaint violated this one-year prohibition. The Court also ruled that Sections 16 and 17 of the House Rules of Procedure, which defined how impeachment proceedings are initiated, were unconstitutional as they contradicted the constitutional definition of initiating impeachment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Francisco, Jr. vs.

    Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino,


    Inc., 415 SCRA 44, November 10, 2003

    Case Nature: PETITIONS for review of the House of Representatives’ Second Impeachment
    Complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
    Division: EN BANC
    Docket Number: G.R. No. 160262, G.R. No. 160263, G.R. No. 160277, G.R. No. 160292, G.R.
    No. 160295, G.R. No. 160310, G.R. No. 160318, G.R. No. 160342, G.R. No. 160343, G.R. No.
    160360, G.R. No. 160365, G.R. No. 160370, G.R. No. 160376, G.R. No. 160392, G.R. No.
    160397, G.R. No. 160403, G.R. No. 160405
    Counsel: Potenciano A. Flores, Jr., Jaime L. Miralles, Melencio S. Sta. Maria, Jr., Romulo B.
    Macalintal, Pete Quirino Quadra, Arturo M. De Castro, Soledad M. Cagampang, Francisco I.
    Chavez, Luis Angel G. Aseoche, Don Carlos R.. Ybañez, H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., Joel Ruiz
    Butuyan, Percival S. Ortega, Gary S. Mallari, Nelson A. Loyola, Fernando P. Rueda Perito,
    Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Orlando Mendiola, Claro B. Flores, Goering G.C. Paderanga, Dante T.
    Ramos, Gloria C. Entenzo-Ramos, Liza D. Corro, Ranhilio C. Aquino, Venicio S. Flores, Hector
    L. Hofileña, Dioscoro U. Vallejos, Jr., Democrito C. Barcenas, Manuel M. Monzon, Victor A.
    Maambong, Adelino B. Sitoy, Jovito R. Salonga, Alfredo L. Benipayo, Carlos N. Ortega,
    Thomas M. Laragan, Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag, Jaime N. Soriano, Joaquin G. Bernas, Hugo
    E. Gutierrez, Jr., Florence Regalado, Estelito P. Mendoza, Regalado E. Maambong, Raul C.
    Pangalangan, Pacifico Agabin, Abraham F. Sarmiento, Justo P. Torres, Jr.
    Ponente: CARPIO-MORALES

    Dispositive Portion:
    WHEREFORE, 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.

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I maintain that in disposing of this case we should exercise
    judicial restraint and leave the matter to the Senate unless such exercise is fraught with
    grave abuse of discretion. Hence, I find no legal obstacle to dismissing the instant petitions.

    WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the petitions and to declare Sections 16 and 17 of the
    House Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, I vote to, DENY DUE COURSE and to DISMISS all
    the petitions against the respondent Senate of the Philippines; and to DENY DUE COURSE
    and DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 160397; and to give due course and grant the rest of
    the petitions against the respondent Speaker Jose G. de Venecia and his co-respondents.
    Accordingly, Rule V of the 2001 House Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings
    which was approved by the respondent House of Representatives on November 28, 2001, is
    UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The complaint of impeachment filed by the respondents
    Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William G. Fuentebella on October 22,
    2003, is barred under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

    ACCORDINGLY, concurring with the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of Justice


    Carpio-Morales, I vote to GRANT the petitions insofar as they seek the declaration of
    the unconstitutionality of the challenged provisions of the House Rules on Impeachment
    and the pronouncement that the second impeachment complaint is time-barred on the
    basis of Section 3(5), Article XI of the Constitution.

    Facts of the Case:


    On June 2, 2003, an impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Hilario Davide
    and seven (7) Associate Justices. However, it was dismissed by The House Committee on
    Justice on October 22, 2003, for being insufficient in substance.

    Representative Gilbert Teodoro and Felix Fuentabella filed a new impeachment complaint
    against Chief Justice Davide on October 23, 2003.

    Petitions arose against the House of Representatives et al, who contend that the filing of
    the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional, violating the provision of Section 5,
    Article XI of the Constitution.

    “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official


    more than one within the period of one year.” – Section 5, Article XI of the
    Constitution.

    Senator Pimentel Jr. Filed a Motion to Intervene, stating that the consolidated petitions be
    dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the Court. and that the sole power, authority, and
    jurisdiction of the Senate as the impeachment court be recognized and upheld pursuant to
    the provision of Article XI of the Constitution.

    Issue/s:
    Whether or not the Court has the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the second
    impeachment complaint pursuant to Article XI of the Constitution.

    Ruling
    The second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3 (5) of Article XI of the
    Constitution.
    (5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
    official more than once within a period of one year.
    The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole, the said provision should function to the
    full extent of its substance and form and its terms, in conjunction with all other provisions
    of the Constitution.

    Pursuant to Section 1 Article VIII of the Constitution, “the judicial power shall be vested in
    one Supreme Court.” Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
    actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable. Also, to
    determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
    excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch of the government.

    Questions arising: (Not yet verified by the instructor)

    The reason why Sections 16 and 17 of the Rule V 2001 House Rules of Procedure in
    Impeachment Proceedings are unconstitutional?

    Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or
    endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the
    filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the
    Secretary General of the House, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear.
    Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may
    not be filed against the same official within a one-year period.

    Under Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules, impeachment


    proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if there is a finding by the House Committee on
    Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is sufficient in substance, or (2) once
    the House itself affirms or overturns the finding of the Committee on Justice that the
    verified complaint and/or resolution is not sufficient in substance or (3) by the filing or
    endorsement before the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives of a verified
    complaint or a resolution of impeachment by at least 1/3 of the members of the House.
    These rules clearly contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI since the rules give the term
    "initiate" a meaning different from filing and referral.

    You might also like