FRANCISCO, JR. VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Digest

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 6

FRANCISCO, JR. VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, G.R. No.

160261-Notes
November 10, 2003

Thesis Statement:

ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR (together with NAGMAMALASAKIT NA MGA MANANANGGOL NG MGA


MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO, INC., ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS) filed a petition against the HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES on the grounds of UNCONSTITIONAL IMPEACHMENT

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the judiciary power extends to those arising from impeachment proceedings;
2. Whether the impeachment filed against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. complies with Section
3(5), Article XI of the Constitution.

FACTS:

- 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."
(June 2, 2003)
- The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003, that the first impeachment
complaint was "sufficient in form, "9 but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003, for
being insufficient in substance.
- 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., (October 23, 2003)
- 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.
- October 28, 2003, during the plenary session of the House of Representatives, a motion was put
forth that the second impeachment complaint be formally transmitted to the Senate, but it was
not carried because the House of Representatives adjourned for lack of quorum,

Quorum - the minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of
its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
ARGUMENTS:

HR SC
October 28, 2003, when respondent House of Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987
Representatives through Speaker Jose C. De Constitution
Venecia, Jr. and/or its co-respondents, by way of
special appearance, submitted a Manifestation SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in
asserting that this Court has no jurisdiction to one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
hear, much less prohibit or enjoin the House of may be established by law.
Representatives, which is an independent and co-
equal branch of government under the Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
Constitution, from the performance of its justice to settle actual controversies involving
constitutionally mandated duty to initiate rights which are legally demandable and
impeachment cases. enforceable, and to determine whether or not
October 28, 2003, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, there has been a grave abuse of discretion
Jr., in his own behalf, filed a Motion to Intervene amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
(Ex Abudante Cautela) and Comment, praying part of any branch or instrumentality of the
that "the consolidated petitions be dismissed for government.
lack of jurisdiction of the Court over the issues
affecting the impeachment proceedings As pointed out by Justice Laurel, this
"moderating power" to "determine the proper
ex abundante cautela. out of an abundance of allocation of powers" of the different branches of
caution government and "to direct the course of
government along constitutional channels" is
October 29, 2003, Senate President Franklin M. inherent in all courts as a necessary consequence
Drilon, filed a Manifestation stating that insofar of the judicial power itself, which is "the power of
as it is concerned, the petitions are plainly the court to settle actual controversies involving
premature and have no basis in law rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable
Atty. Jaime Soriano filed a "Petition for Leave to
Intervene" on the ground that it would
unnecessarily put Congress and this Court in a
"constitutional deadlock" and praying for the
dismissal of all the petitions as the matter in
question is not yet ripe for judicial determination.
Respondents Speaker De Venecia, et. al. and As held in the case of Garcia vs. COMELEC, "[i]n
intervenor Senator Pimentel rely heavily on resolving constitutional disputes, [this Court]
American authorities, principally the majority should not be beguiled by foreign jurisprudence
opinion in the case of Nixon v. United States. some of which are hardly applicable because they
Thus, they contend that the exercise of judicial have been dictated by different constitutional
review over impeachment proceedings is settings and needs." Indeed, although the
inappropriate since it runs counter to the Philippine Constitution can trace its origins to
framers' decision to allocate to different fora the that of the United States, their paths of
powers to try impeachments and to try crimes; it development have long since diverged. In the
disturbs the system of checks and balances, colorful words of Father Bernas, "[w]e have cut
under which impeachment is the only legislative the umbilical cord."
check on the judiciary; and it would create a lack
of finality and difficulty in fashioning relief.
Speaker De Venecia et. al. argue that "[t]here is a The exercise of judicial restraint over justiciable
moral compulsion for the Court to not assume issues is not an option before this Court.
jurisdiction over the impeachment because all Adjudication may not be declined, because this
the Members thereof are subject to Court is not legally disqualified. Nor can
impeachment. jurisdiction be renounced as there is no other
tribunal to which the controversy may be
referred." Otherwise, this Court would be
shirking from its duty vested under Art. VIII, Sec.
1(2) of the Constitution. More than being clothed
with authority thus, this Court is duty-bound to
take cognizance of the instant petitions.127 In
the august words of amicus curiae Father Bernas,
"jurisdiction is not just a power; it is a solemn
duty which may not be renounced. To renounce
it, even if it is vexatious, would be a dereliction of
duty."
Speaker de Venecia, et. al. raise another in People v. Veneracion, to wit:
argument for judicial restraint the possibility that
"judicial review of impeachments might also lead Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock
to embarrassing conflicts between the Congress of our system of justice. If [public officers], under
and the [J]udiciary." They stress the need to the guise of religious or political beliefs were
avoid the appearance of impropriety or conflicts allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries
of interest in judicial hearings, and the scenario within which they are required by law to exercise
that it would be confusing and humiliating and the duties of their office, then law becomes
risk serious political instability at home and meaningless. A government of laws, not of men
abroad if the judiciary countermanded the vote excludes the exercise of broad discretionary
of Congress to remove an impeachable official powers by those acting under its authority. Under
this system, [public officers] are guided by the
Rule of Law, and ought "to protect and enforce it
without fear or favor," resist encroachments by
governments, political parties, or even the
interference of their own personal beliefs.
Speaker De Venecia, argues that Sections 16 and That the sponsor of the provision of Section 3(5)
17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules do of the Constitution, Commissioner Florenz
not violate Section 3 (5) of Article XI of our Regalado, who eventually became an Associate
present Constitution, contending that the term Justice of this Court, agreed on the meaning of
"initiate" does not mean "to file;" that Section 3 "initiate" as "to file," as proffered and explained
(1) is clear in that it is the House of by Constitutional Commissioner Maambong
Representatives, as a collective body, which has during the Constitutional Commission
the exclusive power to initiate all cases of proceedings, which he (Commissioner Regalado)
impeachment; that initiate could not possibly as amicus curiae affirmed during the oral
mean "to file" because filing can, as Section 3 (2), arguments on the instant petitions held on
Article XI of the Constitution provides, only be November 5, 2003 at which he added that the act
accomplished in 3 ways, to wit: (1) by a verified of "initiating" included the act of taking initial
complaint for impeachment by any member of action on the complaint, dissipates any doubt
the House of Representatives; or (2) by any that indeed the word "initiate" as it twice
citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any appears in Article XI (3) and (5) of the
member; or (3) by at least 1/3 of all the members Constitution means to file the complaint and take
of the House. initial action on it.

Respondent House of Representatives concludes Father Bernas explains that in these two
that the one year bar prohibiting the initiation of provisions, the common verb is "to initiate." The
impeachment proceedings against the same object in the first sentence is "impeachment
officials could not have been violated as the case." The object in the second sentence is
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice "impeachment proceeding." Following the
Davide and seven Associate Justices had not been principle of reddendo singuala sinuilis, the term
initiated as the House of Representatives, acting "cases" must be distinguished from the term
as the collective body, has yet to act on it. "proceedings."
Reddendo singula singulis is a Latin term that
means by referring each to each; referring each
phrase or expression to its corresponding object.

RULING:

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.

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.

ARTICLES MENTIONED:

11TH CONGRESS RULES 12TH CONGRESS NEW RULES

RULE II RULE V

BAR AGAINST INITIATION OF


INITIATING IMPEACHMENT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE SAME OFFICIAL
Section 2. Mode of Initiating
Impeachment. – Impeachment shall Section 16. – Impeachment
be initiated only by a verified Proceedings Deemed Initiated. – In
complaint for impeachment filed by cases where a Member of the House
any Member of the House of files a verified complaint of
Representatives or by any citizen upon impeachment or a citizen files a
a resolution of endorsement by any verified complaint that is endorsed
Member thereof or by a verified by a Member of the House through a
complaint or resolution of resolution of endorsement against
impeachment filed by at least one- an impeachable officer,
third (1/3) of all the Members of the impeachment proceedings against
House. 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.

In cases where a verified complaint


or a resolution of impeachment is
filed or endorsed, as the case may
be, by at least one-third (1/3) of the
Members of the
House, impeachment proceedings
are deemed initiated at the time of
the filing of such verified complaint
or resolution of impeachment with
the Secretary General.

RULE V Section 17. Bar Against Initiation Of


Impeachment Proceedings. – Within
BAR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT
a period of one (1) year from the
Section 14. Scope of Bar. – No date impeachment proceedings are
impeachment proceedings shall be deemed initiated as provided in
initiated against the same official Section 16 hereof, no impeachment
proceedings, as such, can be
more than once within the period of initiated against the same official.
one (1) year. (Italics in the original; emphasis and
underscoring

You might also like