Facts – Francisco vs House of Representatives Case Digest

On June 2, 2003, an impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Hilario
Davide and seven (7) Associate Justices. However, it was dismissed by The House
Committee on Justice on October 22, 2003, for being insufficient in substance.

Representative Gilbert Teodoro and Felix Fuentabella filed a new impeachment

complaint against Chief Justice Davide on October 23, 2003.

Petitions arose against the House of Representatives et al, who contend that the filing
of the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional, violating the provision of
Section 5, Article XI of the Constitution.

“no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than one
within the period of one year.” – Section 5, Article XI of the Constitution.

Senator Pimentel Jr. Filed a Motion to Intervene, stating that the consolidated petitions
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the Court. and that the sole power, authority and
jurisdiction of the Senate as the impeachment court be recognized and upheld pursuant
to the provision of Article XI of the Constitution.

Issue

Whether or not the Court has the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the second
impeachment complaint pursuant to Article XI of the Constitution.

Ruling
The second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3 (5) of Article XI of the
Constitution.

The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole, the said provision should function to

the full extent of its substance and form and its terms, in conjunction with all other
provisions of the Constitution.

Pursuant to Section 1 Article VIII of the Constitution, “the judicial power shall be vested
in one Supreme Court.” Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable. Also,
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on part of any branch of the government.
ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, GR No. 160261, 2003-11-10
Facts:
On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution... which directed the
Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the... manner of
disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary
Development Fund
On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint[4] (first
impeachment complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate
Justices[5] of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust
and other high crimes."[6] The complaint was endorsed by Representatives Rolex T. Suplico,
Ronaldo B.
Zamora and Didagen Piang Dilangalen,[7] and was referred to the House Committee on Justice
on August 5, 2003[8] in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution
The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first impeachment
complaint was "sufficient in form,"[9] 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 [11] was filed with the
Secretary General of the House[12] by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. (First District,
Tarlac) and Felix William B. Fuentebella (Third District, Camarines Sur) against Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the... alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by
above-mentioned House Resolution. 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.[13]
Thus arose the instant petitions against the House of Representatives, et. al., most of which
petitions contend that the filing of the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it
violates the provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution that
"[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within
a period of one year."
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. Thus, in J.M. Tuason & Co.,
Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration,[36] this Court, speaking through Chief Justice Enrique
Fernando, declared:
We look to the language of the document itself in our search for its meaning. We do not of
course stop there, but that is where we begin. It is to be assumed that the words in which
constitutional provisions are couched express the objective sought... to be attained. They are to
be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed in which case the
significance thus attached to them prevails. As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer's
document, it being essential for the rule of law... to obtain that it should ever be present in the
people's consciousness, its language as much as possible should be understood in the sense they
have in common use. What it says according to the text of the provision to be construed
compels acceptance and negates... the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate
that the framers and the people mean what they say. Thus these are the cases where the need
for construction is reduced to a minimum.[37] (Emphasis and underscoring... supplied)
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. And so did this Court apply this principle
in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary[38] in this wise:
A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention underlying the provision
under consideration. Thus, it has been held that the Court in construing a Constitution should
bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the... evils, if any, sought
to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of
the times, and the condition and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. The
object is to ascertain the reason which induced the... framers of the Constitution to enact the
particular provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the
whole as to make the words consonant to that reason and calculated to effect that purpose.[39]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied supplied)
As it did in Nitafan v. Commissioner on Internal Revenue[40] where, speaking through Madame
Justice Amuerfina A. Melencio-Herrera, it declared:... x x x The ascertainment of that intent is
but in keeping with the fundamental principle of constitutional construction that the intent of
the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it should be given effect. The primary
task in constitutional... construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the
purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. It may also be
safely assumed that the people in ratifying the Constitution were guided mainly by the
explanation... offered by the framers.[41] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole. Thus, in
Chiongbian v. De Leon,[42] this Court, through Chief Justice Manuel Moran declared:... x x x
[T]he members of the Constitutional Convention could not have dedicated a provision of our
Constitution merely for the benefit of one person without considering that it could also affect
others. When they adopted subsection 2, they... permitted, if not willed, that said provision
should function to the full extent of its substance and its terms, not by itself alone, but in
conjunction with all other provisions of that great document.[43] (Emphasis and... underscoring
supplied)

Issues:
whether or not the power of judicial review extends to those arising from impeachment
proceedings; (2) whether or not the essential pre- requisites for the exercise of the power of
judicial review have been fulfilled; and (3) the substantive... issues yet remaining. These matters
shall now be discussed in seriatim.
Issue no. 1