GAYARES | JUDICIAL REVIEW
Francisco Jr. v Nagmamalasakit
GR No. 160261 | November 10, 2003
Ernesto Francisco Jr., petitioner
Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng
mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc.,
respondent
DOCTRINE
Judicial Review – Political questions are
beyond the courts. Courts will not touch the
issue of constitutionality unless it is truly
unavoidable and is the very lis mota or crux
of the controversy.
FACTS
 The 12th Congress of the House of
Representatives adopted the Rules
of Procedure in Impeachment
Proceedings on November 28,
2001.
 A resolution was then adopted by
the House of Representatives,
which directed the Committee on
Justice to investigate, in aid of
legislation, the manner of
disbursements and expenditures by
the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of the Judiciary Development
Fund (JDF).
 President Joseph Estrada then filed
an impeachment complaint against
Chief Justice Hilario Davide and
seven Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court for culpable violation
of the Constitution, betrayal of the
public trust and other high crimes.
This was filed on June 2, 2003 and
was endorsed by the House of
Representatives.
 On August 5, 2003, the House
Committee on Justice ruled that the
impeachment complaint was
sufficient in form, but dismissed it on
October 22, 2003 for being
insufficient in substance.
 The following day, the Secretary
General of the House of
Representatives filed another
impeachment complaint against
Chief Justice Hilario Davide founded
on the alleged results of the
legislative inquiry initiated by the
aforementioned House Resolution.
The complaint was even
accompanied by a Resolution of
Endorsement signed by at least 1/3
of all the Members of the House.
 However, Sec. 5 Art. XI of the
constitution provide that no
impeachment proceedings shall be
initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of
one year.
ISSUES
W/N the offenses alleged in the second
impeachment complaint constitute valid
impeachable offenses under the
Constitution?
W/N Sec. 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules
on Impeachment adopted by the 12th
Congress are unconstitutional for violating
the provisions of Sec. 3 Art. XI of the
Constitution?
W/N the second impeachment complaint is
barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the
Constitution?
PROVISION
1987 Philippine Constitution – Section 3(5)
Article XI
HELD
1. This issue is a non-justiciable
political question, which is beyond
the scope of the judicial power of the
Supreme Court. Such discussion
would make a determination of what
constitutes an impeachable offense,
which is a purely political question
left to the sound discretion of the
legislation. The intent behind this is
clear from the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission.
2. YES – The Rule of Impeachment
adopted by the Congress is
unconstitutional. Sec. 3 of Art. XI
provides that the Congress shall
promulgate its rules in impeachment
to effectively carry out the purpose
of this section. The power to
promulgate its rules on
impeachment is limited by that
specific phrase. Hence, these rules
cannot contravene the very purpose
of the Constitution.
3. YES – It falls within the one year
restriction of the Constitution. The
first complaint was filed on June 2,
 2003 and was referred to the House
Committee on Justice on August 3,
2003, while the second complaint
was filed on October 23, 2003. That
violates the constitutional prohibition
against the initiation of impeachment
proceedings against the same
officer within a one-year period.

DISPOSITION
Wherefore, Sec. 16 and 17 of Rule V of the
Rules of Procedure in Impeachment
Proceedings which were approved by the
House of Representatives on November 28,
2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the
second impeachment complaint against CJ
Hilario Davide which was filed by Rep.
Gilberto Terodoro Jr. and Felix Fuentebella
with the Office of the Secretary General of
the House of Representatives on October
23, 2003 is barred under Sec. 3(5) of Article
XI of the Constitution.