Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives | G.R. No. 160261 | Nov.

10, 2003
Decision: h
ttps://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_160261_2003.html Case
Digest by: Feona
Facts:

 In November 2001, the 12th Congress of the House of Representatives adopted the House
Impeachment Rules, superseding the previous set of rules approved by the 11th
Congress

 The 11th Congress’ rules provided that impeachment shall be initiated only by a verified
complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any
citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof or by a verified complaint
or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the
House

 Meanwhile, the 12th Congress’ rules provided that impeachment proceedings are “d
eemed i nitiated 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”

 In 2002, the House adopted a resolution, that directed the House Committee on Justice to
conduct an investigation in aid of legislation on the disbursements and expenditures by
then Chief Justice Hilario Davide of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)

 In June 2003, then President Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against CJ Davide and
7 Associate Justices for culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and
other high crimes. Complaint was referred to House Committee on Justice.

 The House Committee on Justice ruled that the 1st impeachment complaint was “sufficient in
form,” but later voted to dismiss the same for being “insufficient in substance”

 In October 2003, a day after the dismissal of the impeachment complaint, a 2 nd

impeachment complaint was filed by Reps Teodoro and Fuentebella against CJ Davide
founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry on the use of the JDF. The 2 nd
complaint came with a resolution of endorsement/impeachment signed by at least 1/3 of all
House members.

 Petitioners, among them Atty Ernesto Francisco, contend that the filing of the 2 nd
impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Sec 5 Art XI of the
Constitution that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one year.”
  Petitioner seeks to prevent the House from transmitting to the Senate the Articles of
Impeachment arising from 2nd impeachment complaint; and for the court to declare the 12th
Congress House Impeachment Rules as null and void for being unconstitutional
Issue: Whether 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
Ruling: Yes. The provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules which
state that 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 thus clearly contravene Section 3 (5) of
Article XI as they give the term "initiate" a meaning different from "filing."

It is thus clear that the framers intended "initiation" to start with the filing of the complaint. In
his amicus curiae brief, Commissioner Maambong explained that "the obvious reason in deleting the
phrase "to initiate impeachment proceedings" as contained in the text of the provision of Section
3 (3) was to settle and make it understood once and for all that the initiation of impeachment
proceedings starts 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." X x x

Father Bernas further explains: The "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. Neither is the "impeachment proceeding"
initiated when the House deliberates on the resolution passed on to it by the Committee, because
something prior to that has already been done. The action of the House is already a further step in
the proceeding, not its initiation or beginning. Rather, the proceeding is initiated or begins, when a
v erified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. This is the initiating
step which triggers the series of steps that follow. X x x

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.