ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.

, petitioner,
NAGMAMALASAKIT NA MGA MANANANGGOL NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO, INC.,
ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, petitioner-in-intervention,
WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner-in-intervention,
vs.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, THE
SENATE, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON, REPRESENTATIVE
GILBERTO C. TEODORO, JR. AND REPRESENTATIVE FELIX WILLIAM B. FUENTEBELLA,
respondents.
JAIME N. SORIANO, respondent-in-Intervention,
SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, respondent-in-intervention
G.R. No. 160261 November 10, 2003
Facts:
● On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution 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
● 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 complaint was endorsed by Representatives
Rolex T. Suplico, Ronaldo B. Zamora and Didagen Piang Dilangalen and was referred to
the House Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003[8] in accordance with Section 3(2) of
Article XI of the Constitution
● 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.
● Four months and three weeks after 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 the 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.Thus arose the instant petitions against the
House of Representatives, et. al., most of which petitions contend that the filing of the
second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section
5 of Article XI of the Constitution that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once within a period of one year. To determine the
merits of the issues raised in the instant petitions, this Court must necessarily turn to
the Constitution itself which employs the well-settled principles of constitutional
 construction. First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the
Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are
employed.
Issues:
Whether or not the second impeachment is unconstitutional.

Rulings:
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.

Yes. Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which
were approved by the House of Representatives are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, is barred under paragraph 5,
section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution. In passing over the complex issues arising from the
controversy, this Court is ever mindful of the essential truth that the inviolate doctrine of
separation of powers among the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government by no
means prescribes for absolute autonomy in the discharge by each of that part of the
governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign people. At the same time, the corollary
doctrine of checks and balances which has been carefully calibrated by the Constitution to
temper the official acts of each of these three branches must be given effect without destroying
their indispensable co-equality. There exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the
exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks
and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to
be allowed to defeat another." Both are integral components.