The Davide Impeachment Case: Restating 2003] JUDICIAL SUPREMACY 807

Judicial Supremacy over Constitutional

In the face of what was perceived as a looming constitutional crisis at the
Questions height ofChiefJustice Hilario Davide's impeachment, different parties pursued
Maricris C. Ang, * Mark Leinad R. Enojo, ** various options to break the impasse between the Legislature and the Judiciary.
Divina Gracia P. de Ia Cerna,*** and Rosalyn C. Rayco**** Lawmakers and politicians believed that a political solution was the most
appropriate.' The Executive and the political parties also stepped into the
fray and pursued informal talks in support of a "win-win" solution) However,
asserting that they possess standing to sue as citizens, taxpayers,4 members of
I. INTRODUCTION
the Integrated Bar,s members of the House of Representatives6 and that the
II. T,HE PRECEDENTS OF THE CASE .......••...................
issues of the case were of transcendental importance,? several parties chose to
i\The Myth and Reality cifjudicial Supremacy
submit the controversy for judicial determination. Premised upon a belief
B. The Political Question Doctrine and Exercise cifjudicial Restraint
that an authoritative and substantial decision from the Court would resolve
Ill. FRArJr;:Isco V. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
the issues with finality, such judicial option was invoked. This act of seeking
ThE F;\CTS OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . 8I5 a resolution within the legal framework rather than a political compromise
IY. ThEGoURT's DECISION . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 8I7 affirms the belief in the supremacy of the Constitution and the law over
A. Art. 376 and 412 of the Civil Code politics and personalities.
B. Rule 103 and 108 of the Revised Rules of Court
V. ANALYSIS: ThE COURT'S ADHERENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRIMACY 8I8 II. THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS OF THE CASE
VI. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 82 I
A. The Myth and Reality l!fJudicial Supremacy
The Constitution exclt,sively vests upon the Supreme Court the power of
judicial review as part of its judicial powers. 8 It is only the Judiciary which
I. INTRODUCTION has been given the express mandate to declare an act unconstitutional. During
his sponsorship speech in the I986 Constitutional Convention, Commissioner
Never bifore in the 1oz-year existence of the Supreme Court has there been an issue as
Roberto Concepcion, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, elucidated
transcendental as the one bifore us. For the first lime, a ChiifJustice is subjected to an
that the Judiciary, as the final arbiter on questions of constitutionality, exercises
impeachment proceeding. The controversy caus~d people,Jor ~nd against him, to organize
and join rallies and demonstrations in various parts of the country. Indeed, the nation is 2. Carlita Pablo & Gil Cabacungan, Solution to Crisis at Hand-De Veneda, THE PHILIPPINE
divided which ledJustice Jose C. Vitug to declare during the oral arguments in these cases, DAILY INQUIRER, Oct. 27, 2003, atI.
"God save our country!"'
3· Marichu Villanueva, GMA Sees Win- Win Solution, THE PHILIPPINE STAR, Nov. 4, 2003,
at 1.
* '04 J.D., cand., Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. Editor, Ateneo Law In G.R. No. 160262, petitioners Sedfrey M. Candelaria, et a!., sued as citizens a!jld
Journal. taxpayers.In G.R. No. I6o263,petitionersArturo M.de Castro and Soledad C;~garnpang,
invoked their capacities as citizens and taxpayers.
** '04 J.D., r:and., Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. Editor, Ateneo Law
Journal. 5· In G.R. No. I6026I, petitioner Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr., alleged that he has a
duty as a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to use all available legal
*** 'o6 J.D., cand., Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. Editor, Ateneo Law remedies to stop an unconstitutional impeachment. In G.R. No. 160292; petitioners
Journal.
Atty. Harry L. Roque, et a!., sued as members of the legal profession
**** 'o6 J.D., cand.,Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. Editor, Ateneo Law
6. In G.R. No. I60295, petitioners Representatives Salacnib E Baterina and Deputy
Journal.
Speaker Raul M. Gonzalez, came before the Court as members of the House of
Representatives.
Cite a: 48 ATENEO L.J. 8o6 (2004).
7· In G.R. No. I6o262, petitioners Candelaria, eta!., alleged that the issues of the case
1. Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. ro, 2003 (Sandoval- are of transcendental importance.
Gutierrez,J., separate and concurring opinion). 8. PHIL.CONST. art.VIII §§I, 5·