You are on page 1of 1

Facts:

s An impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide and seven Asociate Justices was filed
on 2 June 2003 but was dismissed by The House Committee on Justice on 22 October 2003 for being
insufficient in substance. On 23 October 2003, Representative Gilbert Teodoro and Felix Fuentabella filed a
new impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice. Thus arose the instant petitions against the House of
Representatives et al, most of which contend that the filing of the second impeachment complaint is
unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section 5, Article XI of the Constitution, no impeachment
proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within the period of one year. Senator
Aquilino Pimintel Jr, filed a Motion to Intervene, stating that the consolidated petitions be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction of the Court and that the sole power, authority and jurisdiction of the Senate as the impeachment
court be recognized and upheld pursuant to the provision of Article XI of the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether or not the certiorari jurisdiction of the court may be invoked to determine the validity of the
second impeachment complaint pursuant to Article XI of the Constitution.

Decision:

The second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3 (5) of Article XI of the Constitution.
Applying the principles of constitutional construction, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be
interpreted as a whole, the said provision should function to the full extent of its substance and form and its
terms, in conjunction with all other provisions of the Constitution. Pursuant to Section 1 Article VIII of the
Constitution, the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court. Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on part of any branch of the government. The courts of justice determine the limits of power of the
agencies and offices of the government as well as its officers , this is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass
judgment.

The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way. And when the
judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other
departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and
sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the
Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
guarantees to them.