Francisco vs.

House of Representatives

FACTS:

In late 2001 House of Representatives (HOR) of the 12th Congress adopted its Rules of Procedure in
Impeachment Proceedings. The new rules superseded impeachment Rules of the 11th Congress. Secs. 16
and 17 of these Rules state that impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if House Committee
on Justice deems the complaint sufficient in substance, or (2) if the House itself affirms or overturns the
findings of the House Committee on Justice on the substance of the complaint, or (3) by filing or
endorsement before the HOR Secretary General by one-thirds of the members of the House.

A few months later, HoR passed a resolution directing the Committee on Justice to conduct an
investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by Chief Justice
Davide of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).”

In June 2003, former President Estrada files the first impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide
and 7 Associate Justices of SC for “culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and other
high crimes.” The complaint was referred to the House Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003 in
accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution.

On October 13, 2003, the HOR Committee on Justice found the first impeachment complaint “sufficient
in form.” However, it also voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in
substance. Ten days later, on October 23,2003, Teodoro and Fuentebella filed a second impeachment
complaint against CJ Davide, founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry on the JDF. The
second impeachment complaint was accompanied by a “resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment”
signed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House of Representatives.

Several petitions were filed with the SC by members of the bar, members of the House of Representatives,
as well as private individuals, all asserting their rights, among others, as taxpayers to stop the illegal
spending of public funds for the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice. The petitioners
contend that Article XI, Section 3 (5) of the 1987 Constitution bars the filing of the second impeachment
complaint. The constitutional provision states that “(n)o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”

Speaker Jose de Venecia submitted a manifestaiton to the SC stating that the High Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear the case as it would mean an encroachment on the power of HoR, a co-equal branch
of government.

ISSUES/HELD:

1.) Whether the filing of the second impeachment complaint violates Sec. 3(5), Article XI of the
Constitution—YES
2) Whether Sec. 16 & 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings approved by
the HoR are unconstitutional – YES

3.) Whether or not the certiorari jurisdiction of the court may be invoked – YES

RATIO:

1. The second impeachment complaint falls under the one-year bar under the Constitution.

2. Sec 16 and 17 of House Impeachment Rule V are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court employed three principles in deciding the case:

1) Whenever possible, the words in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning (verbal egis);

2) If there is ambiguity, the Constitution must be interpreted according to the intent of the framers; and

3) The Constitution must be interpreted as a whole.

Applying these principles, to “initiate” in its ordinary acceptation means simply to begin. The records of
the debates by the framers affirm this textual interpretation. From the records of the Constitutional
Convention and the amicus curiae briefs of its two members (Maambong and Regalado), the term “to
initiate” in Sec 3(5), Art. XI of the Constitution refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled
with taking initial action by Congress on the complaint.

By contrast, Secs. 16 and 17 state that impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if House
Committee on Justice deems the complaint sufficient in substance, or (2) if the House itself affirms or
overturns the findings of the House Committee on Justice on the substance of the complaint, or (3) by
filing or endorsement before the HOR Secretary General by one-thirds of the members of the House.

In this light, Secs. 16 and 17 of the House Rules of Procedure for Impeachment are unconstitutional
because the rules clearly contravene Sec. 3 (5), Art. XI since the rules give the term “initiate” a different
meaning from filing and referral.

Hence, the second impeachment complaint by Teodoro and Fuentebella violates the constitutional one-
year ban.

3. The certiorari jurisdiction of the court may be invoked.

The Supreme Court, in exercising its expanded power of judicial review, only carried out its duty as stated
in Section 1, Article VIII, which mandates the judicial department to look into cases where there has been
a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the different branches of government. Here, it only reviewed
the constitutionality of the Rules of Impeachment against the one-year ban explicitly stated in the
Constitution. Consequently, the contention that judicial review over the case would result in a crisis is
unwarranted.

The judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its helm as the final arbiter, effectively checks on the other
departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law. It must declare executive and legislative
acts void if they violate the Constitution. The violation of Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution is thus
within the competence of the Court to decide.