CONSTI 1

EN BANC

G.R. No. 160261             November 10, 2003

FRANCISCO, JR. vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PONENTE: JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES

FACTS:

On June 2, 2003, former President Estrada filed an impeachment complaint (first

impeachment complaint) against Chief Justice Davide Jr. and seven Associate
Justices5 of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public
trust and other high crimes." The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13,
2003 that the first impeachment complaint was "sufficient in form," but voted to dismiss
the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance. Four months and
three weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the first complaint or on October 23,
2003, a day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it, the second
impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Davide, Jr. This second
impeachment complaint was accompanied by a "Resolution of
Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the
House of Representatives.

ISSUE: W/N this Court may exercise the power of judicial review to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the legislative branch of the government

HELD:
Yes, this Court's power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the
government in Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987 Constitution which includes the
power 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.

To determine the merits of the issues raised in the instant petitions, this Court must
necessarily turn to the Constitution itself which employs the well-settled principles of
constitutional construction.

First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be
given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed.

Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words of the Constitution
should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.

Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.