CASE DIGEST

Francisco v. HOR
Constitutional Law

Court Supreme Court

Date November 10, 2003
Plaintiff-Appellee Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr.
Accused-Appellants House of Representatives (HOR)
Ponente Carpio-Morales, J.
Overview A case regarding the impeachment cases filed against the Chief Justice of the SC
Relevant topic How to Read the Constitution
A Framework for Constitutional Litigation

Constitutional Provisions
Art. XI, Sec. 3 (1), (5) & (8)
 (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all
cases of impeachment

Xxx

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official

more than onece within a period of one year.

Xxx

(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry
out the purpose of this section.

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:

FACTS:

 On June 2, 2003, ERAP filed with the Sec. Gen. of the HOR a verified impeachment complaint against CJ
Davide and 7 other Associate Justices for violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, and committing
high crimes; complaint was dismissed on Oct. 22, 2003 by the House Committee on Justice for insufficiency
of substance
 On Oct. 23, 2003, several members of HOR (including Gilbert Teodoro) filed another verified impeachment
complaint with the Sec. Gen. against CJ Davide; attached was a Resolution of Endorsement signed by at
least 1/3 of all members of the HOR
 They alleged underpayment of the COLA of members and personnel of the judiciary from the Judiciary
Development Fund (JDF) and unlawful disbursement of said fund for various infrastructure projects and
acquisition of service vehicles and other equipment
 The 2nd impeachment complaint filed is the subject of the case, petitioners contending that the same was
unconstitutional under Article XI Sec. 3 (5) of the Constitution.
ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD
1) WON the filing of the 2nd impeachment complaint falls within the one YES, therefore 2nd impeachment
year bar complaint is unconstitutional

2) WON Sec. 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment are YES, unconstitutional for
unconstitutional for violating provisions of Art. XI, Sec. 3 of the different meaning attributed to
Constitution word “initiate”

RATIO:
 Issue is not on the impeachment but on the constitutionality of the rules on impeachment
 Two fundamental powers of republican gov’t:
1) Separation of powers does not give each branch absolute autonomy to discharge powers assigned to
them
2) Corollary doctrine of “checks and balances” was designed to temper the acts of each of the branches;
must be given effect without destroying their indispensable co-equality
 “salus populi est suprema lex” = the welfare of the people should be the supreme law
Page 1 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Francisco v. HOR
Constitutional Law

 Term “initiate” in the Constitutional provisions, means to begin or to commence’ refers to the filing of the
impeachment complaint coupled with Congress’ taking initial action of said complaint
 Intent for rule is to prevent harassment, hence filing is allowed only once a year
 Initiated was used twice in the provision and same meaning must be applied/conveyed
 Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment give the word “initiate” a meaning different from
that intended in the Constitution
 Congress’ power to promulgate rules on impeachment is not absolute; these rules cannot contravene the
Constitution; all rules must not contravene the Constitution


Separation of Powers

 Not expressly provided for in the Constitution but can be gleaned from its actual division (Art. VI, VII, VIII)
 Each department of government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme
within its own sphere
 Does not mean that the powers are to be kept separate and absolutely unrestrained and independent
 System of checks and balances secures coordination among the branches
 Judiciary, with SC as final arbiter, checks other departments in the exercise of power
 Founded on the belief that, by establishing equilibrium among the 3 branches, harmony will result, power will
not be concentrated, and tyranny avoided

Judicial Review

 Art. VIII, Sec. 1 provides

“The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law.
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 the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.”
 In Angara v. Electoral Commission, Justice Laurel said that:
- Judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper
allocation of powers between the branches of government
- The Constitution has established a republican government intended to operate and function as a
harmonious whole, under a system of checks and balances, and subject to specific limitations and
restrictions
- Judicial review is an integral component of the delicate system of checks and balances
- When judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over other
departments
- “moderating power” to determine proper allocation of power and to direct the course of government along
constitutional channels is inherent in all courts as a necessary consequence of judicial power
 Power of judicial review is even acknowledged in Art. 7 of the Civil Code:
…When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the
latter shall govern.”
 When an action of the legislative is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only
the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute

Lis Mota

 Well-established rule in adjudication that an issue assailing the constitutionality of a government act should be
avoided whenever possible
 Courts will not touch the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly unavoidable and is the very lis mota (cause
or motivation) or crux of the controversy
 In Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the SC laid down requisites for Judicial inquiry of a
constitutional question:
1. Actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power
2. Locus standi = right to bring action or to address the court
Page 2 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Francisco v. HOR
Constitutional Law

3. Ripeness
4. Lis mota

Constitutional Construction
 How the Constitution should be read
1) Verba Legis
- Words in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning, except where technical terms are
employed (in which case, the significance thus attached to them prevails)
2) Ratio Legis Est Anima
- When there is ambiguity, interpret in accordance with the intent of the framers
- Bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished and the evils sought to be prevented
- Also consider the conditions and circumstances when it was framed
3) Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat = the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole
- Provisions of the Constitution function in conjunction with other provisions
- No one provision of the Constitution is to be separated from the others
 If plain meaning is not found to be clear, resort to other aids may be had (analogous jurisprudence, judicial
decisions)
 Proper interpretation depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than the framers’
understanding
 The people are the majority and their votes gave the instrument the force of fundamental law

Political Question

 No clear standard between justiciable political questions and non-justiciable political questions
 Were there constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies? If in the
affirmative, then the courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality properly acted
within such limits

RULING:
WHEREFORE, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings…are
unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment complaint…is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article
XI of the Constitution.

Page 3 of 3