Francisco v.

House of Representatives
Justice Carpio-Morales
G.R. 160261 | November 10, 2003

Interpreting the Constitution

FACTS:
 November 28, 2001: The 12th Congress of the House of Representatives adopted and
approved the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings
 July 22, 2002: The House of Representatives adopted a Resolution directing 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 (JDF)
 June 2, 2003: Former President Joseph Estrada filed the first impeachment complaint
against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
for “culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high
crimes” (complaint endorsed by the House of Representatives)
 The House Committee on Justice ruled that the complaint was “sufficient in form” (October
13, 2003), but “insufficient in substance,” voting to dismiss complaint (October 22, 2003)
 October 23, 2003: A second impeachment complaint was filed by Representatives Gilbert
Teodoro Jr. and Felix Fuentebella against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., based on the
alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by the July 22 House Resolution
o Complaint accompanied by a “Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment”
o Signed by at least 1/3 of all members of the House of Representatives
 Various petitions (prohibition, certiorari, and mandamus) were filed with the Supreme
Court against the House of Representatives, stating that the filing of the second
impeachment complaint is unconstitutional, violating Art. 11 Sec. 3 Par. 5 of the
Constitution, and that Sections 16 and 17 of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment
Proceedings are unconstitutional as well
o Art. 11 Sec. 3 Par. 5: “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the
same official more than once within a period of one year”

ISSUES:
1. W/N the offenses alleged in the Second impeachment complaint constitute valid
impeachable offenses under the Constitution.
2. W/N Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment adopted by the 12th
Congress are unconstitutional for violating the provisions of Art. 11 Sec. 3 Par. 5 of the
Constitution.
3. Whether the second impeachment complaint is barred under Art. 11 Sec. 3 Par. 5 of the
Constitution.

HELD:
1. This question is BEYOND THE SCOPE of the Court’s judicial power under Art. 8 Sec. 1
of the Constitution.
  Any discussion of this issue would require the Court to determine what constitutes
an impeachable offense. Such determination is a purely political question, which is
non-justiciable and for the legislature to decide.
 Courts will not touch the issue of constitutionality it is unless truly unavoidable and
is the very lis mota or crux of the controversy (as applied in Sotto v. Commission
on Elections and Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform).
2. YES, Sections 16 and 17 are deemed unconstitutional under Art. 11 Sec. 3.
 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 insufficient 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 Art. 11 Sec. 3 Par. 5 as they give the term “initiate” a
meaning different from “filing.”
3. YES, the second impeachment complaint is barred under Art. 11 Sec. 3.
 The Court determines that the “initiation” takes place by the act of filing the
impeachment complaint and referring to the House Committee on Justice.
 Considering that the first complaint was filed on June 2, 2003, and the second on
October 23, 2003, the filing of the second complaint violates Art. 11 Sec. 3 Par. 5
of the Constitution, which prohibits the initiation of impeachment proceedings
against the same impeachable officer within one year.

RULING:
Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules are deemed unconstitutional and
are thus void. The second impeachment complaint is barred.

CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT (No Justice had full dissent):

J. Puno
On Issue 1:
 “The power of impeachment has both political and non-political aspects. I
respectfully submit that the petitions at bar concern its non-political aspect, the
issue of whether the impeachment complaint against C.J. Davide is already barred
… By any standard, this is a justiciable issue.”
 Casibang v. Aquino: A justiciable question implies a given right, legally
demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a
remedy granted and sanctioned by law for breach of such right.
 “The petitions at bar involve C.J. Davide’s right against the initiation of a
second impeachment within 1 year after a first impeachment complaint. The right
is guaranteed by no less than the Constitution. It is a right that can be vindicated
in our courts.”