G.R. No.

1602261

Article XI Accountability of Public Officers

Section 3. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment

Section 5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than
once within a period of one year

Section 6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.

On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against CJ
Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for “culpable violation of the
Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes.”

Petitioner Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. alleged that he has a duty as a member of the IBP to
use all available legal remedies to stop an unconstitutional impeachment.

ISSUES:

1. Locus standi of petitioners

2. Ripeness
3. Justiciability (political question)
4. House’s exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment
5. Senate’s sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment
6. Constitutionality of the House Rules on Impeachment vis-à-vis Section 3(5) of Article XI
of the Constitution
7. Judicial restraint

1. 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
3. Whether or not Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules violate Section
3 (5) of Article XI of our present Constitution

Petitioners plead for this court to exercise the power of judicial review to determine the validity
of the second impeachment complaint

Section 1, Article VIII of Consti provides that judicial power shall be vested in one SC 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 cases of conflict, the Judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called
upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and
among the integral of constituent units thereof.

The constitution provides that when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
boundaries, it only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution
to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution. The judiciary , with the SC
as the final arbiter effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to
determine the law and hence declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the
Constitution.

Constitutional Construction argues that the Constitution has a dual nature. This means that
there is a process of constitutional interpretation. This is evident in the issue whether or not the
power of judicial review extends to those arising to impeachment proceedings, as the Senate
has the sole power to try and decide all cases regarding impeachment. The ordinary meaning of
the Constitution shall be followed except where technical terms are employed in which case the
significance thus attached to them prevails.

Where there is ambiguity, the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance
with the intent of its framers. Fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that the
intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it should be given effect.

Constitutional Construction must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word
operative, rather than one which may make the words idle and nugatory.

I. Whether the offenses alleged in the Second impeachment complaint constitute valid impeachable
offenses under the Constitution.

II. Whether the second impeachment complaint was filed in accordance with Section 3(4), Article XI
of the Constitution.

III. Whether the legislative inquiry by the House Committee on Justice into the Judicial Development
Fund is an unconstitutional infringement of the constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the
judiciary.

IV. Whether Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment adopted by the 12th
Congress are unconstitutional for violating the provisions of Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution.
V. Whether the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the
Constitution.

Respondent HOR speaker De Venecia argues that Section 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House
Impeachment Rules do not violate Section 3 (5) of Article XI of our present Constitution saying
that the term “initiate” does not mean “to file”

Check pnl-law.com 1 year bar