Ernesto Francisco vs.

House of Representatives

G.R. No. 160261

November 10, 2003

Ponente Justice Conchita Carpio Morales

FACTS:

The 12th Congress Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings was approved on November 28,
2011.

On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed the first impeachment complaint against
former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of the Supreme Court on grounds
of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes.

A day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss the first impeachment complaint for
insufficiency in substance, the second impeachment case against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., along
with a Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment signed by one-third of all the Members of the House of
Representatives, was filed on October 23, 2003 with the Secretary General of the House by
Representatives Gilberto Teodoro and Felix William Funtebella.

On October 27, 2003 Atty. Ernesto Francisco, enforcing his duty as a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, raised a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus to thwart an unconstitutional
impeachment.

On October 28, 2003, a motion was put forth that the second impeachment case against Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide Jr. be formally transmitted to the Senate but due to lack of quorum of the House of
Representatives, the transmission did not carry out.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Section 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Congress Rules of Procedure in Impeachment
Proceedings are unconstitutional.

Whether or not the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the
Constitution.

HELD:

Yes. Section 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Congress Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings are
unconstitutional.

Yes. The second impeachment case against Justice Hilario G. Davide falls within one year from the
initiation of the first impeachment case thus rendering it unconstitutional.