FRANCISCO JR.

versus NAGMAMALASAKIT NA MGA MANANANGGOL NG MGA

MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO, INC.
G.R. No. 160261
November 10, 2003
FACTS:
On the 28th of November 2001, the 12th Congress adopted and approved the Rules of Procedure in
Impeachment Proceedings superseding 11th Congress Rules. On 22 July 2002, the House of
Representatives (HOR) adopted a resolution which directed the Committee on Justice to conduct an
investigation in aid of legislation with regard to the manner of disbursement and expenditures by Chief
Justice Hilario Davide. On 2 June 2003, former President Joseph Estrada filed the first impeachment
case to CJ Davide and to seven other Associate Justices for betrayal of public trust and other high
crimes. The complaint was then endorsed to HOR. On 5 August, 2003, HOR referred the complaint to
the Committee on Justice which was declared as sufficient in form on 13 October 2003. However, the
Committee dismissed the complaint on 22 October 2003 due to its lack of substance. The next day, a
second impeachment complaint was filed with the Secretary General of the HOR. The said complaint
was made by Teodoro and Fuentebella. The said complaint was founded on the alleged results of the
legislative inquiry and was signed by 1/3 of all the members of HOR. After the second impeachment
complaint was filed, various petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus were filed with the
Supreme Court against HOR.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Supreme Court has the power to exercise Judicial Review to determine the
constitutionality of the 2nd Impeachment complaint.
(2) Whether or not Section 16 and 17 of the Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment are
constitutional.
HELD
(1) YES. The power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the government and it
includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government. Furthermore, the Constitution did not intend to leave the
matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress for it also provides that the court
may exercise its power if there are judicially discoverable standards. Also, there exists no
constitutional basis that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would
upset the system of checks and balances and the separation of power.
According to Sec. 5 of Art. XI of the Constitution, No impeachment proceedings shall be
initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. The SCs
declaration of the 2nd impeachment complaint as unconstitutional doesnt mean that it exceeds
its power and it doesnt overpower the other branches of the government: executive and
legislative.
Even though the person to be impeached is the highest magistrate of the court, the judicial
branch of the government recognizes no supremacy over the Constitution.
(2) NO. Sections 16 and 17 gave the term initiate a meaning different from filing. Therefore,
they are unconstitutional. The different meaning given was that an impeachment proceedings
are deemed initiated if there was a finding that the complaint is sufficient in substance or if
the house affirms or overturns the decision of the Committee or if there is a finding or
endorsement before the Secretary General by at least 1/3 of all its members. However, the
Constitution only provides that the term initiate only means filing. According to the words of
Father Bernas, the Constitution is ratified by the people, both ordinary and sophisticated, as
they understand it.