FRANCISCO ET AL vs HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

G.R. No. 160262 November 10, 2003

FACTS:

On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William
D. Fuentebella, 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).”

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 House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first impeachment complaint was “sufficient in
form,” but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance.To date, the Committee
Report to this effect has not yet been sent to the House in plenary in accordance with the said Section 3(2) of Article
XI of the Constitution.

Four months and three weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the first complaint or on October 23, 2003, a day
after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment complaint was filed with the
Secretary General of the House 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 initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution.

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. Since the first impeachment complaint
never made it to the floor for resolution, respondent House of Representatives concludes that the one year bar
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. Opposing petitioners on the other hand
interpreted the word “initiate” to mean the filing of the complaint. Since there was already a first complaint that never
got through the Committee, no impeachment complaint maybe filed until the lapse of the 1 year period.
ISSUE/S

1. When is an impeachment proceeding initiated?

2. Is the second impeachment complaint valid?

HELD

1. Art. XI, Sec. 3, pars. (1), (5) & (6) of the Constitution states:
(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a
period of one year.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for
that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on
trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
“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.