1. Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.

160261, November 10, 2003

Doctrine: 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.

Facts:
On June 2, 2003, Former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices for “culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and
other high crimes.” This First impeachment complaint was dismissed as it was sufficient in form but lacking in
substance. A day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment complaint was
filed. 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 once within a period of one year”).
Respondents argue that the one year bar could not have been violated as the first impeachment complaint has not
been initiated. Sec. 3(1) Article XI is clear in that it is the House, as a collective body, which has “the exclusive power to
initiate all cases of impeachment.” “Initiate” could not possibly mean “to file” because filing can, as Sec. 3 of the same
provides, only be accomplished in 3 ways, to wit: (1) by a verified complaint for impeachment by any member of the
House; or (2) by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any member; or (3) by at least 1/3 of all the
members of the House. Since the House, as a collective body, has yet to act on the first impeachment complaint, the
first complaint could not have been “initiated”. Senator Pimentel Jr. Filed a Motion to Intervene, stating that the
consolidated petitions be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme 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(s):
1. Whether or not the impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice transgressed the
constitutionality imposed one-year time bar rule (against Rules of the House of Representatives)
2. Whether or not the Court has the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the second impeachment complaint
pursuant to Article XI of the Constitution

Held:

1. Yes. The resolution of this issue thus hinges on the interpretation of the term "initiate." Resort to statutory
construction is, therefore, in order. "Initiate" of course is understood by ordinary men to mean, as dictionaries
do, to begin, to commence, or set going. It is thus clear that the framers intended "initiation" to start with the
filing of the complaint. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint
may not be filed against the same official within a one-year period. To the argument that only the House as a
body can initiate impeachment proceedings because Sec. 3(1) of Art. XI of the Const. says “The House x x x shall
have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment,” this is a misreading and is contrary to the
principle of reddendo singula singulis by equating “impeachment cases” with “impeachment proceeding”. And
according to the Amicus curiae, the proceeding is initiated or begins, when a verified complaint is filed and
referred to the Committee on Justice for action. This is the initiating step which triggers the series of steps that
follow.

2. Yes. There was a preliminary issue on whether the power of judicial review extends to those arising from
impeachment proceedings. The Court ruled in the affirmative. Our Constitution, though vesting in the House of
Reps the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases, provides for several limitations to the exercise of such
power: the manner of filing, required vote to impeach, and the one year bar on the impeachment of one and the
same official (Art. XI, Secs. 3 (2), (3), (4) and (5)). Where there are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or
functions conferred upon political bodies, our courts are dutybound to examine whether the branch or
instrumentality of the government properly acted within such limits pursuant to its expanded certiorari
jurisdiction under Art. VIII, Sec. 1: the power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on the part of any
government branch or instrumentality. (Id.) N.B. There are two types of political questions: (1) justiciable and (2)
non-justiciable. The determination of one from the other lies in the answer to the question of whether there are
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. (Id.)