FRANCISCO v.

HOR

FACT:

On June 2, 2003, former President Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide,
Jr. and seven associate justices for culpable violation of the constitution, betrayal of the public trust, and
other high crimes. However, the same was dismissed for lack of substance.

On October 23, 2003, another impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Davide, Jr. by
Fuentabella and it was accompanied by the Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment signed by at least
one-third of all members of the House.

Several petitions were filed and most of the petitioners contended that the filing of the second
impeachment complaint violates the provision under Art. XI, Section 5, of the 1987 Constitution. House
Speaker De Venecio, Jr., respondent, contended in his manifestation that the Court has no jurisdiction to
hear, much less prohibit or enjoin the House which is independent and co-equal branch under the
Constitution. Senator Pimentel, Jr., intervenor, likewise contended that the consolidated petitions be
dismissed as the sole power, authority, and jurisdiction to try and decide the impeachment case is in the
Senate.

ISSUE: W/N 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.

Applying the principles of constitutional construction, ut magis valeat quam pereat. 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 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 part of any branch of the government. The
courts of justice determine the limits of power of the agencies and offices of the government as well as
its officers , this is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment.

The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way. And
when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over
the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only
asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting
claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the
rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.