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.

Relevant topic Justiciable and Political Questions

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 once 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, former President ERAP filed a verified impeachment complaint against CJ Davide and 7
other Associate Justices
- For violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, and other 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 Secretary General of the House against CJ Davide
- Alleged the misuse of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) by the Chief Justice
- At least 1/3 of the members of the HOR signed the resolution endorsing the 2 nd complaint
 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 issue is beyond judicial review by reason of the political NO

question doctrine

RATIO:
Justiciability
 Political question connotes a question of policy (Tanada v. Cuenco)
- Questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity
- Full discretionary authority has been delegated to the political branches (Legislative and Executive)
- Concerned with issues of wisdom and not legality of a particular measure

Page 1 of 2
CASE DIGEST
Francisco v. HOR
Constitutional Law

 There were many cases when the Court hid behind the veil of the political question doctrine and refused to
exercise power of judicial review
- Many instances during the Marcos regime when the government set up the political question doctrine as a
defense and got away with it (one such instance was the “ratification” of the 1973 Constitution without a
referendum)
- Motivated CJ Concepcion, when he became Constitutional Commissioner, to clarify the Court’s power of
judicial review and its application on issues involving political questions
- Concepcion inserted the 2nd paragraph under Sec. 1, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution which defines
judicial power to ensure the courts may not evade the duty to settle issues which are within its jurisdiction
by claiming that such constitute a political question
 Judicial power is a duty
- Cannot be renounced merely due to the political question doctrine
 Paragraph 2 of Sec. 1, Art. VIII does not intend to do away with the “political question doctrine”
- Recognizes that there are 2 species of political questions: 1) truly political questions, and 2) not truly
political questions
- Truly political questions are beyond judicial review (non-justiciable political questions)
 This fact was recognized by Concepcion based on the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission
 Respect for the doctrine of separation of powers must be maintained
- Not truly political questions may be reviewed by the courts (justiciable political questions)
 Former Dean Agabin pointed out that the Court has taken jurisdiction over several cases which
involved not truly political questions
- “judicial power includes” means this provision recognizes that there are other instances which may not be
covered by the provision but are still within the scope of the Court’s judicial power
 How the Court determines whether an issue presents a justiciable political question or a non-justiciable
political question
- In Philippine jurisdiction, determination lies in the answer to the question of whether there are
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies
- If there are, then the courts are duty-bound to step in and determine whether branch/instrumentality of
government properly acted within such limits
- In Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, Justice Teodor Padilla said:
 The “allocation of constitutional boundaries” is a task that the Court must perform under the
Constitution
 The jurisdiction to define constitutional boundaries has been given to the SC
- In other words, issues such as an act of a branch of government in excess of its jurisdiction or on rival
claims between branches with respect to powers granted them by the Constitution are justiciable political
questions and may be taken cognizance of by the courts

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 2 of 2