Francisco v.

House of Representatives
GR no. 160261
November 10, 2003

-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
-Whether the resolution of it is apolitical question
-Two fundamental principles of republican government -> Doctrine of Separation of powers and Doctrine of Checks and
Balances -> intended as they are to insure that governmental power is wielded only for the good of the people.
-Article XI accountability of Public Officers
1. Public office is a public trust
2. Impeachment -> President, VP, Members of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions and
Ombudsman
3. (1) HR shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any member of HR or by any citizen upon resolution of endorsement
by any member thereof-> will be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days and referred to the proper
committee within 3 session days after it -> after committee hearing and majority vote from it, submit report to house within
60 session days -> 10 session days to consider resolution by house
(3) 1/3 of all members of the house shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment
of the Committee
(4) After which, trial by senate shall forthwith proceed
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one yr.
(6) Senate -> sole power to try and decide cases of impeachment. If president is on trial, Chief Justice of SC shall preside but
shall not vote. 2/3 vote to impeach
(7) Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution trial and punishment accdg to law
(8) The congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section
-11th congress rules on impeachment was revised by 12th congress new rules
12th congress rules -> Rule V (Bar against initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same official)
Section 16 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
-in cases where the verified complaint is endorsed by 1/3 of HR, impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated
(Later establish that initiation = filing)
Section 17 Within a period of 1 year from the date impeachment proceedings are DEEMED INITIATED, no
impeachment proceedings as such can be initiated against the same official
-Estrada files an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario F. Davide Jr and Seven Associate Justices of this court for
culpable violation of the Consti, betrayal of public trust and other high crimes. -> found by Committee on Justice as sufficient
in FORM no in SUBSTANCE
-4 months and 3 weeks since filing -> second impeachment complaint was filed against Davide Jr.
Petitions
- 2nd complaint was unconstitutional as it violates section 3 par 5 of Article XI -> one year
-most petitions are as citizens, taxpayers, lawyers
-Senate President Franklin M. Drilon files a Manifestation that petitions are plainly premature and have no basis in law or in
fact -> no justiciable issue was presented since:
1. Its constitutional duty to constitute itself as an impeachment court commences only upon its receipt of the Articles
of Impeachment which it had not
2. The principal issues raised by the petitions pertain exclusively to the proceedings in the HR.
-Atty. Soriano -> pray for dismissal of all petitions bc it would lead to CONSTITUTIONAL GRIDLOCK between court and
Congress
Whether the certiorari jurisdiction of the SC may be invoked; who can invoke it; on what issues and at what time; and whether
it should be exercised by this court at this time. In discussing these issues the ff may be taken up:
1. Locus Standi of petitioners
2. Ripeness (prematurity; mootness)
3. Political Question/justiciability
4. Houses exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment
5. Senates sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment
 6. Constitutionality of the House Rules on impeachment in relation to Section 3(5) of Article XI
7. Judicial Restraint
Judicial Review -> must be considered before discussing the issues
-Jose P. Laurel -> In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to
determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units of it.
-When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the consti, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern
-Judicial review is indeed an integral component of the delicate system of checks and balances which together with the
corollary principle of separation of powers
-Judicial review is the cief indeed the only medium of participation or instrument of intervention of the judiciary in that
balancing operation
-To determine the merits of the issues related in the instant petitions, this court must necessarily turn to the constitution itself
which employs the well-settled principle of CONSITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
1. verbal egis -> words in the consti must be given their ordinary meaning -> document of people and not lawyers
2. Ambiguity (ratio legis est anima) -> the words of the consti should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of
the framers
3. The consti is to be interpreted as a whole (ut magis valeat quam perea -> consti not for the benefit of one person.
Every provison is in conjuction with all other provisions of the consti
-Speaker De Venecia and Intervenor Senator Pimentel raise the novel argument that the consti has excluded impeachment
proceedings from the coverage of judicial review -> issue is political in character -> contends that the Senates sole power to
try impeachment cases:
1. Excludes the application of judicial review
2. Necessarily includes the senates power to determine consti questions relative to impeachment proceedings.
-Devenecia and Pimentel rely heavily on American Authorities
-But this court should not be beguiled by foreign jurisprudence -> Bernas -> umbilical cord is cut
-US SC -> judicial review is only implied and discretionary in nature
-PH SC and lower courts -> not just power but also a DUTY
-US Consti -> bestows sole power of impeachment to the HR WITHOUT LIMITATION
-PH -> HR power to impeach is limited -> if unlimited then beyond scope of judicial review thus deny writ of mandamus
Essential Requisites for Judicial Review
1. Actual Controversy present
2. Locus Standi
3. Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very motivation of the case
1. Standing
-locus standi -> personal and substantial interest
-Intervenor Soriano say only chief justice will incur an injury
-Solicitor General asserts that petitioners have standing -> transcendental importance -> paramount to public interest
-When the real party in interest is unable to vindicate his rights by seeking the same remedies, as in the case of the Chief
Justice who for ethical reasons cannot himself invoke the jurisdiction of this court, the court will grant petitioners standing.
1. Rule on Real-party-in-interest concept of civil procedure (whether a particular plaintiff is the real party in interest or has
the capacity to sure)
2. Rule on Standing constitutional and public policy underpinnings (is a special concern in constitutional law because in some
cases suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law but by concerned citizens,
taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest
Citizen he will sustain or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement
-when the proceeding involves the ASSERTION OF A PUBLIC RIGHT, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the
requirement of personal interest.
Taxpayer where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed
Legislator question the validity of any official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator
-Indeed a member of the House of Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges
vested by the constitution in his office
-any member of the legal profession in his duty to preserve the law is not enough to gain standing -> interest is too general
but issues raised by it is deserving of attention thus this court relaxed the requisites on standing and gave attention to the
issues presented
Class suits filed in behalf of the citizens and must be filed with numerous number for it to fully protect the citizens
Res Judicata Principle binding on all members of the class whether or not they were before the court
Instructive Determinants of Transcendental Importance
1. The character of the funds or other assets involved in the case
2. The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent
agency or instrumentality of the govt
3. The lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being raised
-Applying these determinants this court is satisfied that there is indeed transcendental importance
Motions for intervention requires an intervenor to possess a legal interest in the matter in litigation -> must be adversely
affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court
-intervention is not a matter of right, it may be permitted by the courts when the applicant shows facts which satisfy
the requirements of the law authorizing the intervention
-Pimentels stand that courts intervention will undermine the independence of the senate (Drilon on the opposite view)
-Jaime N. Sorianos motion to intervene is denied because not meet requirements for bringing a taxpayers suit -> failed to
allege that the acts of petitioners will result in illegal disbursement of public funds -> being member of bar also did not suffice
in giving him standing
2. Ripeness and Prematurity
-Ripe for adjudication -> something had by then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come
into the picture
-Jovito Salonga suggests that all remedies in the house and senate be first exhausted before submitting to court
-Dean Raul Pangalangan suggests signatures to be withdrawn first so HR can raise constitutionality on the Impeachment rules
themselves
-suggestions fail to persuade:
1. Withdrawing signatures would not by itself cure the House Impeachment Rules of their constitutional infirmity
2. Neither HR or Senate is clothed with the power to rule with definitiveness on the issue of constitutionality
3. Justiciability
-Political Question -> a question of policy -> concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom NOT legality
-During martial law judiciary was not given much power -> the main defense put up during this time was the political question
doctrine
2 Species of Political Question
1. Truly Political Questions beyond judicial review -> respect for sep. of Powers
2. Are not truly Political Questions
Standards of a Political Question in American Concept of Judicial Review
1. A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
2. The lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it
3. The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion
If there are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or function conferred upon political bodies -> courts are DUTY-BOUND
to examine -> apply to the present case
Petitions raise 5 substantial issues
1. Whether the offenses alleged in the 2nd complaint constitute valid impeachable offenses under the Constitution
2. Whether 2nd complaint was filed in accordance with Section 3(4) Article XI of the Constitution
3. Whether the legislative inquiry by the House Committee on Justice into the Judicial Development Fund is an
unconstitutional infringement of the constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary
4. Whether section 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment are unconsti
5. Whether 2nd impeachment complaint is barred under section 3(5) of Article XI of the Consti
4. Lis Mota
-courts will not touch the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly unavoidable and is the very list mota or crux of the
controversy
-Intervenors Macalintal and Quandra claim that 2nd impeachment complaint to automatically become the Articles of
Impeachment and for trial in the Senate to begin forthwith is that the verified complaint be FILED not merely endorsed by 1/3
of HR -> but not used anymore as the motivation for the petitions since it would invalidate other petitions since this
motivation is more of procedural rather than the constitutionality of the rules on impeachment which other petitions have
emphasized.
-The motivations of the case now are:
1. Whether section 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules adopted by the 12th congress are unconstitutional
for violating the provisions of Section 3
2. Whether as the result thereof, the 2nd impeachment complaint is barred under section 3(5) of Article XI of the Consti
5. Judicial Restraint
-Pimentel -> judicial restraint bc Senate has sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment
-Father Bernas -> jurisdiction is not just a power; it is a solemn duty which may not be renounced.
-Demetria V. Alba ->7 pillars of limitation of the power of judicial review
1. The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding, declining because to
decide such questions is legitimate only in the last resort and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital
controversy between individuals.
2. The court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it. It is not the habit of
the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case
3. The court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be
applied
4. The court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if there is also present
some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. Thus if a case can be decided on either of two ground, one
involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the court will decide only
the latter.
5. The court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its
operation
6. The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
7. When the validity of an act of the congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it
is a cardinal principle that this court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the
questions may be avoided.
-These 7 pillars was summarized in Ashwander v. TVA
1. That there be absolutely necessity in deciding a case
2. That rules of constitutional law shall be formulated only as required by the facts of the case
3. That judgment may not be sustained on some other ground
4. That there be actual injury sustained by the party by reason of the operation of the statute
5. That the parties are not in estoppel
6. That the court upholds the presumption of constitutionality
-The case at hand follows the aforementioned requisites (Page 1 of this digest) for judicial review
6. Constitutionality of the Rules of Procedure for Impeachment Proceedings adopted by the 12th Congress
-Respondent HR through Speaker De Venecia -> initiate does NOT mean to file because as section 3(2) Article XI provides 3
ways to FILE:
1. By a verifies complaint for impeachment by any member of the HR
2. By any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any member
3. By at least 1/3 of all the members of HR
-Respondent HR concludes that one year prohibiting the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same officials
could not have been violated as the impeachment complaint against Davide and 7 associate justices has NOT BEEN INITIATED
as the HR acting as the collective body has yet to act on it.
-Commissioner Florenz Regalado agreed on the meaning of INITIATE = TO FILE as explained by Constitutional Commissioner
Maambong
-An IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING is not a single act -> beginning (filing), middle, end
-Note that the Rule does not say impeachment proceedings are initiated but rather are DEEMED INITIATED
-The language is recognition that initiation happened earlier but by legal fiction there is an attempt to postpone it to a time
after actual initiation.
Case VS Proceedings
Impeachment case is the legal controversy that must be decided by the Senate
-However before a decision is made to initiate a case in the Senate, a PROCEEDING must be followed to arrive at a conclusion.
A proceeding must be INITIATED.
Proceeding is a progressive noun:
1. Filing of a verified complaint
2. Processing of this complaint by the proper committee
3. Whether the resolution of the Committee rejects or upholds the complaint, the resolution must be forwarded to
the House for further processing
4. Processing of the same complaint by HR -> if at least 1/3 vote, Articles of Impeachment are prepared and
transmitted to the Senate
-Impeachment proceeding is not initiated when the complaint is transmitted to the Senate for trial because that is the end of
the House Proceeding and the beginning of another proceeding namely the TRIAL.
-The proceeding is initiated or begins when the verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action.
-Thus section 3(5) means to say that no impeachment proceeding shall be initiated (FILED) 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
-To the argument that only the HR as a body can initiate impeachment proceedings bc of Section 3(1) -> misreading of said
provision and is contrary to the principle of Reddendo Singula Singulis (referring each to each) by equating impeachment
cases with impeachment proceeding.
Under Section 16 and 17 of rule V of the House Impeachment Rules, Impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated:
1. If there is finding by the House Committee on Justice that the verified complaint is sufficient in substance
2. Once the House itself affirms or overturns the finding of the COJ that the verified complaint is not sufficient in substance
3. By filing or endorsement before the secGen of HR of a verified complaint or a resolution of impeachment by at least 1/3 of
the member of HR.
-These rules clearly CONTRAVENE Section 3(5) since the rules give the term INITIATE a different meaning from FILING and
REFERRAL.
-HR has no absolute power to promulgate rules bc of the phrase to effectively carry out the purpose of this section
-where the construction to be given to a rule affects persons other than the members of the legislature, the question becomes
judicial in nature
7. Validity of the Second Impeachment Complaint
-because initiation = filing -> second complaint is not valid
Decision
1. Section 16, 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
2. 2nd Impeachment complaint against CJ Davide filed by Teodoro and Fuentebella with SecGen of HR is barred under
Section 3(5) of Article XI.