Akbayan - Estrada - David - Francisco Case Digests
Akbayan - Estrada - David - Francisco Case Digests
Aquino – Re: JPEPA dismissed the Petition for mandamus and prohibition, which sought
(July 16, 2008) to compel respondents Department of Trade Industry (DTI)
[V1.0] Undersecretary Thomas Aquino et al to furnish petitioners the full
text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement
Facts: (JPEPA) and the lists of the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted
The signing of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and
Agreement (JPEPA) at the sidelines of the Asia-Europe Summit in annexes thereto.
Helsinki in September 2006 was hailed by both Japanese Prime
Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Philippine President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo as a “milestone in the continuing cooperation In its Decision, the Court noted that the full text of the JPEPA has
and collaboration, setting a new chapter of strategic partnership for been made accessible to the public since 11 September 2006, and
mutual opportunity and growth (for both countries).” thus the demand to be furnished with copy of the said document
has become moot and academic. Notwithstanding this, however,
JPEPA which has been referred to as a ‘mega treaty’ is a the Court lengthily discussed the substatives issues, insofar as they
comprehensive plan for opening up of markets in goods and impinge on petitioners' demand for access to the Philippine and
services as well as removing barriers and restrictions on Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.
investments. It is a deal that encompasses even our commitments
to the WTO. The Court held: “Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v.
Manglapus, it is clear that while the final text of the JPEPA may not
The complexity of JPEPA became all the more evident at the Senate be kept perpetually confidential – since there should be 'ample
hearing conducted by the Committee on Trade and Commerce last opportunity for discussion before [a treaty] is approved' – the offers
November 2006. The committee, chaired by Senator Mar Roxas, exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to be
heard differing views and perspectives on JPEPA. On one hand the privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It is reasonable to
committee heard Government’s rosy projections on the economic conclude that the Japenese representatives submitted their offers
benefits of JPEPA and on the other hand the views of environmental with the understanding that 'historic confidentiality' would govern
and trade activists who raised there very serious concerns about the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the
the country being turned into Japan’s toxic waste basket. The Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign
discussion in the Senate showed that JPEPA is not just an issue governments in future negotiations.”
concerning trade and economic relations with Japan but one that
touches on broader national development concerns. It also reasoned out that opening for public scrutiny the Philippine
offers in treaty negotiations would discourage future Philippine
Issues: representatives from frankly expressing their views during
1. Do the therein petitioners have standing to bring this action for negotiations. The Highest Tribunal recognized that treaty
mandamus in their capacity as citizens of the Republic, as negotiations normally involve a process of quid pro quo, where
taxpayers, and as members of the Congress negotiators would willingly grant concessions in an area of lesser
2. Can this Honorable Court exercise primary jurisdiction of this importance in order to obtain more favorable terms in an area of
case and take cognizance of the instant petition. greater national interest.
3. Are the documents and information being requested in relation
to the JPEPA exempted from the general rules on transparency and In the same Decision, the Court took time to address the dissent of
full public disclosure such that the Philippine government is Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. It said: “We are aware that behind
justified in denying access thereto. the dissent of the Chief Justice lies a genuine zeal to protect our
people's right to information against any abuse of executive
Ruling: privilege. It is a zeal that We fully share. The Court, however, in its
The Supreme Court en banc promulgated last July 16, 2008 its endeavour to guard against the abuse of executive privilege,
ruling on the case of “Akbayan Citizens Action Party et al vs. should be careful not to veer towards the opposite extreme, to the
Thomas G. Aquino et al” (G.R. No. 170516). The Highest Tribunal
point that it would strike down as invalid even a legitimate exercise want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or
thereof.” simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an
ordinary citizen. In the final analysis, it is for the courts to
determine on a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of
AKBAYAN vs. Aquino – Re: JPEPA interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the public.
(July 16, 2008)
[V2.0] From the nature of the JPEPA as an international trade agreement,
it is evident that the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted
Facts: during the negotiations towards its execution are matters of public
Petitioners seek to obtain from respondents the full text of the concern. This, respondents do not dispute. They only claim that
Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) diplomatic negotiations are covered by the doctrine of executive
including the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the privilege, thus constituting an exception to the right to information
negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and annexes and the policy of full public disclosure.
thereto.
Thus, the Court holds that, in determining whether an information
The JPEPA, which will be the first bilateral free trade agreement to is covered by the right to information, a specific “showing of need”
be entered into by the Philippines with another country in the event for such information is not a relevant consideration, but only
the Senate grants its consent to it, covers a broad range of topics whether the same is a matter of public concern. When, however,
which includes trade in goods, rules of origin, customs procedures, the government has claimed executive privilege, and it has
paperless trading, trade in services, investment, intellectual established that the information is indeed covered by the same,
property rights, government procurement, movement of natural then the party demanding it, if it is to overcome the privilege, must
persons, cooperation, competition policy, mutual recognition, show that that the information is vital, not simply for the
dispute avoidance and settlement, improvement of the business satisfaction of its curiosity, but for its ability to effectively and
environment, and general and final provisions. reasonably participate in social, political, and economic decision-
making.
Issues:
a. Whether or not the claim of the petitioners is covered by the 2. Supreme Court stated that the constitutional right to information
right to information. includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final
b. Whether the executive privilege claimed by the respondents contract. The information, however, must constitute definite
applies only at certain stages of the negotiation process. propositions by the government and should not cover recognized
c. Whether there is sufficient public interest to overcome the claim exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic
of privilege. secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public
d. Whether the Respondents’ failed to claim executive privilege on order.
time.
3. The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege and can
Ruling: be overcome by a sufficient showing of need. This need
Supreme Court dismissed the petition, on the following reasons: determination is to be made flexibly on a case-by-case, ad hoc
basis. "[E]ach time [the deliberative process privilege] is asserted
1. To be covered by the right to information, the information sought the district court must undertake a fresh balancing of the
must meet the threshold requirement that it be a matter of public competing interests," taking into account factors such as "the
concern. relevance of the evidence," "the availability of other evidence,"
"the seriousness of the litigation," "the role of the government,"
In determining whether or not a particular information is of public and the "possibility of future timidity by government employees.
concern there is no rigid test which can be applied. ‘Public concern’
like ‘public interest’ is a term that eludes exact definition. Both In the case at hand, Petitioners have failed to present the strong
terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may and “sufficient showing of need”. The arguments they proffer to
establish their entitlement to the subject documents fall short of family and friends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords.
this standard stated in the decided cases. The expose’ immediately ignited reactions of rage. On November
13, 2000, House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of
There is no dispute that the information subject of this case is a Impeachment signed by 115 representatives or more than 1/3 of all
matter of public concern. The Court has earlier concluded that it is the members of the House of Representatives to the Senate. On
a matter of public concern, not on the basis of any specific need November 20, 2000, the Senate formally opened the impeachment
shown by petitioners, but from the very nature of the JPEPA as an trial of the petitioner. On January 16, 2001, by a vote of 11-10, the
international trade agreement. senator-judges ruled against the opening of the second envelope
which allegedly contained evidence showing that petitioner held
Further, the text of the JPEPA having been published, petitioners P3.3 billion in a secret bank account under the name “Jose
have failed to convince this Court that they will not be able to Velarde.” The ruling was met by a spontaneous outburst of anger
meaningfully exercise their right to participate in decision-making that hit the streets of the metropolis. Thereafter, the Armed Forces
unless the initial offers are also published. and the PNP withdrew their support to the Estrada government.
Some Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries
4. When the respondents invoked the privilege for the first time and bureau chiefs resigned from their posts.
only in their Comment to the present petition does not mean that
the claim of privilege should not be credited. On January 20, 2001, at about 12 noon, Chief Justice Davide
administered the oath to respondent Arroyo as President of the
Respondents’ failure to claim the privilege during the House Philippines. On the same day, petitioner issued a press statement
Committee hearings may not, however, be construed as a waiver that he was leaving Malacanang Palace for the sake of peace and in
thereof by the Executive branch. What respondents received from order to begin the healing process of the nation. It also appeared
the House Committee and petitioner-Congressman Aguja were that on the same day, he signed a letter stating that he was
mere requests for information. The House Committee refrained transmitting a declaration that he was unable to exercise the
from pursuing its earlier resolution to issue a subpoena duces powers and duties of his office and that by operation of law and the
tecum on account of then Speaker Jose de Venecia’s alleged Constitution, the Vice-President shall be the Acting President. A
request to Committee Chairperson Congressman Teves to hold the copy of the letter was sent to Speaker Fuentebella and Senate
same in abeyance. President Pimentel on the same day.
While it is a salutary and noble practice for Congress to refrain from After his fall from the power, the petitioner’s legal problems
issuing subpoenas to executive officials – out of respect for their appeared in clusters. Several cases previously filed against him in
office – until resort to it becomes necessary, the fact remains that the Office of the Ombudsman were set in motion.
such requests are not a compulsory process. Being mere requests,
they do not strictly call for an assertion of executive privilege.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not the petitioner resigned as President
Estrada v. Desierto; Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo (2) Whether or not the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act
(353 SCRA 452) – (356 SCRA 108) as President
[V1.0]
Facts: Ruling:
In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Estrada was Petitioner denies he resigned as President or that he suffers from a
elected President while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was permanent disability.
elected Vice-President. From the beginning of his term, however, Resignation is a factual question. In order to have a valid
petitioner was plagued by problems that slowly eroded his resignation, there must be an intent to resign and the intent must
popularity. On October 4, 2000, Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singson, be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation
a longtime friend of the petitioner, accused the petitioner, his is not governed by any formal requirement as to form. It can be
oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied. As long to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency. The question
as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect. In the is political in nature and addressed solely to Congress by
cases at bar, the facts show that petitioner did not write any formal constitutional fiat. It is a political issue which cannot be decided by
letter of resignation before leaving Malacanang Palace. the Court without transgressing the principle of separation of
Consequently, whether or not petitioner resigned has to be powers.
determined from his acts and omissions before, during and after
Jan. 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and
posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material Estrada v. Desierto; Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo
relevance on the issue. The Court had an authoritative window on (353 SCRA 452) – (356 SCRA 108)
the state of mind of the petitioner provided by the diary of [V2.0]
Executive Sec. Angara serialized in the Phil. Daily Inquirer. During
the first stage of negotiation between Estrada and the opposition, Facts:
the topic was already about a peaceful and orderly transfer of
power. The resignation of the petitioner was implied. During the This is a petition to question the legitimacy of Gloria
second round of negotiation, the resignation of the petitioner was Macapagal-Arroyo’s assumption of the presidency of the
again treated as a given fact. The only unsettled points at that time Philippines, filed by her immediate predecessor Joseph
were the measures to be undertaken by the parties during and Estrada.
after the transition period. The Court held that the resignation of
the petitioner cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving What actually happened:
Malacanang. In the press release containing his final statement, (1)
he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of o May 11, 1998: Estrada wins the presidency with an
the Republic, but with the reservation about its legality; (2) he overwhelming lead. Arroyo is elected as Vice-
emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the presidency, President.
for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of o October 4, 2000: Ilocos Sur governor Luis “Chavit”
the nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any Singson starts publicly accusing Estrada and his
kind of inability and that he was going to reassume the presidency family of receiving jueteng payoffs.
as soon as the disability disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude o October 5, 2000: Echoes of Singson’s accusations
to the people for the opportunity to serve them; (4) he assured that
resound in both the Senate and House of
he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in
Representatives, mainly through opposition
the same service of the country; and (5) he called on his supporters
members / members of the Minority.
to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of
o October 11-November, 2000: Several advisers resign,
reconciliation and solidarity.
including Department of Social Welfare and
Development Secretary Arroyo. Estrada’s allies in
The Court also tackled the contention of the petitioner that he is
the Majority defect to the other camp. Past
merely temporarily unable to perform the powers and duties of the
presidents and Archbishop Cardinal Sin call for
presidency, and hence is a President on leave. The inability claim is
Estrada’s resignation.
contained in the Jan. 20, 2001 letter of petitioner sent to Senate
o November 13, 2000: House Speaker Manuel Villar
Pres. Pimentel and Speaker Fuentebella. Despite said letter, the
transmits the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
House of Representatives passed a resolution supporting the
o November 20, 2000: the Impeachment Process
assumption into office by Arroyo as President. The Senate also
passed a resolution confirming the nomination of Guingona as Vice- formally starts, with 21 Senators as judges, and
President. Both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.
Arroyo as the President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the presiding.
premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no longer o December 7, 2000-January 11, 2001: the
temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner’s claim of Impeachment trial proper. Presentation of evidence.
inability. The Court cannot pass upon petitioner’s claim of inability On January 11, 11 senators vote against the opening
of “the second envelope,” which allegedly contains incumbent President of the Republic of the
evidence to prove that Estrada indeed kept a secret Philippines” and Arroyo only as temporary / acting
bank account worth 3.3 billion pesos under the name president until he is able to resume his duties.
“Jose Velarde.” These 11 outnumbered the 10 o February 24, 2001: Respondents file their replies to
senators who wanted to have the envelope opened. Estrada’s consolidated petitions.
o January 17, 2001: Public prosecutors resign, and the 1. Petitioner’s Arguments:
impeachment proceedings, postponed indefinitely. • He has not resigned as President yet,
o January 18, 2001: Hundreds of people march to EDSA and so Arroyo’s presidency was void
in a mass movement calling for Estrada’s resignation since the position was not vacant at
(dubbed the “EDSA II Movement”). the time she was sworn in.
o January 19, 2001: the Military withdraws support • He is only temporarily unable to fulfill
from Estrada, and more members of the Executive his duties as President, and that he is
branch resign. Estrada agrees to holding a snap merely on leave.
election for President “where he would not be a • Given the above arguments, Estrada is
candidate.” still President, especially since he was
o January 20, 2001: Estrada’s and Arroyo’s advisers never impeached, and he thus enjoys
start negotiations on a “peaceful and orderly transfer Presidential Immunity from all kinds of
of power,” only to be cut short by Arroyo’s suit.
oathtaking as the 14th President of the Philippines. • The Ombudsman has to stop the
That same day, Estrada and his family leave investigation since he had already
Malacañang. Estrada releases a statement which developed a bias against him (Estrada)
said that he was leaving Malacañang “for the sake of from the “barrage of prejudicial
peace and in order to begin the healing process of publicity on his guilt.”
our nation.” He also sends a letter to both chambers 2. Respondents’ Argument:
of Congress saying that he “[is] unable to exercise • The cases pose a political question (“
the powers and duties of [his] office.” ‘the legitimacy of the Arroyo
o January 22, 2001: Congress issues a Resolution administration’ ”) and are therefore
recognizing and expressing support for the Arroyo out of the Court’s jurisdiction,
presidency. Other countries expressed the same. especially since Arroyo became
o February 6, 2001: Sen. Teofisto Guingona is president through people power, and
nominated by Arroyo to be her Vice-President has already been recognized as such
o February 7, 2001: Senate passed Resolution No. 83 by other governments. They compare
terminating the Impeachment Court. the present case with Aquino’s
“revolutionary government” (Lawyers
What the parties to this case did: League for a Better Philippines v.
Aquino).
o February 5, 2001: Estrada files a petition for
prohibition with a prayer for a writ or preliminary
injunction to enjoin Ombudsman Desierto from Issue:
continuing the probe on the criminal cases filed
against him (OMB Case No. 0-00-1629, 1754-1758), Whether or not Estrada is merely a President on leave,
supposedly until his term as President is over. which makes Arroyo just an Acting President. (Whether Estrada
o February 6, 2001: Estrada files another petition, this resigned from his position)
time a quo warranto petition, against Arroyo. He
wanted to be confirmed as the “lawful and
Ruling: that these would not be possible if Estrada
refuses to give up the presidency.
Estrada resigned from his position. There are two elements o Estrada also argues that he could not have resigned
that must be present to consider someone to have resigned: first, as a matter of law, since Section 12 of Anti-Graft and
the intent to resign, and second, the act/s of relinquishment. Both Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) prohibits the
elements were evident in Estrada’s actuations before he left resignation or retirement of any public officer
pending a criminal or administrative investigation for
Malacañang, and so he must be considered to have resigned.
any case filed against him under RA 3019 or the
Revised Penal Code’s provisions on bribery. The
Court interpreted this provision according to the
intent of the lawmakers, and that is that the
o Using the Totality Test (i.e., the totality of prior,
provision was included supposedly to “prevent the
contemporaneous and posterior facts and act of resignation or retirement from being used …
circumstantial evidence bearing material relevance as a protective shield to stop the investigation of a
on the issue), the Court found that Estrada’s acts to pending criminal or administrative case against him
be tantamount to his resignation. and to prevent his prosecution under [RA 3019]…”
o For intent: the Court mainly used Angara’s Diary, Estrada therefore cannot invoke this provision to
“Final Days of Joseph Ejercito Estrada,” in order to violate the very practice it was supposed to prevent.
intuit Estrada’s intent. The Diary, which was
published in a major publication, described Estrada’s
acts following the massive withdrawal of support by
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo
former Estrada allies. Here, Estrada is quoted to
G.R. No. 171396 - May 3, 2006
have proposed a snap election of which he would not
(Pres. Proclamation No. 1017)
be a part. He was also shown to have conceded to
the idea that he had to resign.
• "Take Care" Power of the President
o For acts of relinquishment: the Court enumerated
five. • Powers of the Chief Executive
a. Estrada acknowledged Arroyo’s oath-taking as • The power to promulgate decrees belongs to the Legislature
President of the Republic.
b. He said he was leaving the seat of presidency FACTS:
for the sake of peace but did not say that he
would return or that he was leaving only These 7 consolidated petitions question the validity of PP 1017
temporarily. He did not specify what kind of (declaring a state of national emergency) and General Order No. 5
inability it was that prevented him from issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. While the cases are
discharging his presidential duties at that pending, President Arroyo issued PP 1021, declaring that the state
time. of national emergency has ceased to exist, thereby, in effect, lifting
c. He thanked the people for the opportunity to PP 1017.
serve them. The Court took this as a “past
opportunity.” ISSUE:
d. He also said he was ready for any future • Whether or not PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 arrogated upon the
challenge, and the Court took to mean “a President the power to enact laws and decrees
future challenge after occupying the • If so, whether or not PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are
[presidency].” unconstitutional
e. He called on his supporters to join efforts at
reconciliation and solidarity. The Court said RULING:
“Take-Care” Power through the military?
This refers to the power of the President to ensure that the laws be As this Court stated earlier, President Arroyo has no authority to
faithfully executed, based on Sec. 17, Art. VII: “The President shall enact decrees. It follows that these decrees are void and, therefore,
have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. cannot be enforced. With respect to “laws,” she cannot call the
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.” military to enforce or implement certain laws, such as customs
laws, laws governing family and property relations, laws on
As the Executive in whom the executive power is vested, the obligations and contracts and the like. She can only order the
primary function of the President is to enforce the laws as well as to military, under PP 1017, to enforce laws pertinent to its duty to
formulate policies to be embodied in existing laws. He sees to it suppress lawless violence.
that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his
department. Before assuming office, he is required to take an oath
or affirmation to the effect that as President of the Philippines, he Francisco v. House of Representatives
will, among others, “execute its laws.” In the exercise of such G.R. No. 160261 – November 10, 2003
function, the President, if needed, may employ the powers [V1.0]
attached to his office as the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed
forces of the country, including the Philippine National Police under
the Department of Interior and Local Government. Facts:
On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a
The specific portion of PP 1017 questioned is the enabling clause: Resolution which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an
“to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements
regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.” and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). Then on June 2, 2003, former
Is it within the domain of President Arroyo to promulgate President Joseph Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against
“decrees”? Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices. The
complaint was endorsed and was referred to the House Committee
The President is granted an Ordinance Power under Chap. 2, Book in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution.
III of E.O. 292. President Arroyo’s ordinance power is limited to
those issuances mentioned in the foregoing provision. She cannot The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the
issue decrees similar to those issued by Former President Marcos first impeachment complaint was "sufficient in form, but voted to
under PP 1081. Presidential Decrees are laws which are of the dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in
same category and binding force as statutes because they were substance. On October 23, 2003, a second impeachment complaint
issued by the President in the exercise of his legislative power was filed against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the
during the period of Martial Law under the 1973 Constitution. alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-
mentioned House Resolution. This second impeachment complaint
This Court rules that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional was accompanied by a "Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment"
insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of
“decrees.” Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the Representatives.
Legislature. Sec. 1, Art. VI categorically states that “the legislative
power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall Issues:
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” To be sure, 1. Can the Court make a determination of what constitutes an
neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of impeachable offense?
emergency can justify President Arroyo’s exercise of legislative
power by issuing decrees. 2. Whether or not Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on
Impeachment adopted by the 12th Congress are unconstitutional.
But can President Arroyo enforce obedience to all decrees and laws
3. Whether or not the second impeachment complaint is barred endorsed by Representatives Suplico, Zamora and Dilangalen, and
under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution. was referred to the House Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003
in accordance with Section 3 (2) of Article XI of the Constitution,
Ruling: which provides the substantial rules in initiating impeachment
1. No. Such a determination is a purely political question which the cases.
Constitution has left to the sound discretion of the legislation.
Although Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution enumerates six The House on Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that
grounds for impeachment, two of these, namely, other high crimes the first impeachment complaint was “sufficient in form,” but voted
and betrayal of public trust, elude a precise definition. to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in
substance.
2. Yes. The provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House
Impeachment Rules contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI as they Four months and three weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the
give the term "initiate" a meaning different from "filing." first complaint, or on October 23, 2003, a day after the House
Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment
3. Yes. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act complaint was filed with the Secretary General of the House by
of filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Representatives Teodoro, Jr. and Fuentabella against Chief Justice
Committee on Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the meaning Hilario G. Davide Jr., founded on the alleged results of the
of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment legislative inquiry initiated by the abovementioned House
complaint has been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may Resolution.
not be filed against the same official within a one year period
following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. Thus arose the instant petitions against the House of
Representatives, et al., most of which petitions contend that the
In fine, considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed filing of the second impeachment complaint was unconstitutional
on June 2, 2003 and the second impeachment complaint filed was as it violates the provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the
on October 23, 2003, it violates the constitutional prohibition Constitution that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the against the same official more than once within a period of one
same impeachable officer within a one-year period. year.”
“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle 2. Essential Requisites for Judicial Review
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable The court’s power of judicial review, like almost all powers
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several limitations,
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of namely: (1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have
government. “standing” to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial
Citing the case of Angara vs. Electoral Commission, the Court interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain,
expounded on the power of judicial review stating that “…in cases direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of
of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity;
which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of
powers between the several departments and among the integral the case.
or constituent units thereof… when the judiciary mediates to
allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert superiority a. Standing
over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a personal and
invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or
sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is
conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to being challenged.
establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which
that instrument secures and guarantees to them…” Intervenor Soriano, in praying for the dismissal of the petitions,
contends that petitioners do not have standing since only the Chief
This “moderating power” to “determine the proper allocation of Justice has sustained and will sustain direct personal injury. On the
powers” of the different branches of the government and “to direct other hand, the Solicitor General asserts that petitioners have
the course of government along constitutional channels” is standing since this Court had, in the past, accorded standing to
inherent in all courts as a necessary consequence of the judicial taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, legislators in cases involving
power itself, which is “the power of the court to settle actual paramount public interest and transcendental importance.
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and There is, however, a difference between the rule on real-party-in-
enforceable.” interest and the rule on standing, for the former is a concept of civil
procedure while the latter has constitutional underpinnings.
Standing is a special concern of the constitutional law because in review, however, he must specifically prove that he has sufficient
some cases suits are brought not by parties who have been interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by
personally injured by the operation of law or by official action taxation and that he would sustain a direct injury as a result of the
taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers, voters who actually enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is not
sue in the public interest. Hence, the question is whether such sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all
parties have “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the members of the public.
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens
the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends As for the legislator, the Court allowed him to sue to question the
for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” validity of any official action which he claims infringes his
prerogatives as a legislator. Indeed a member of the House of
On the other hand, the question as to “real-party-in-interest” is Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the
whether he is “the party who would be benefited or injured by the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in
judgment, or the ‘party entitled to the avails of the suit.’” his office.
While rights personal to the Chief Justice may have been injured by An association has legal personality to represent its members,
the alleged unconstitutional acts of the House of Representatives, especially when it is composed of substantial taxpayers and the
none of the petitioners asserts a violation of the personal rights of outcome will affect their vital interests. In class suits filed in behalf
the Chief Justice. On the contrary, they invariably invoke the of all citizens, persons intervening must be sufficiently numerous to
vindication of their own rights – as taxpayers; members of fully protect the interests of all concerned to enable the court to
Congress; citizens, individually or in a class suit; and members of deal properly with all interests involved in the suit, for a judgment
the bar and of the legal profession – which were supposedly in a class suit, whether favorable or unfavorable to the class, is,
violated by the alleged unconstitutional acts of the House of under the res judicata principle, binding on all members of the
Representatives. class whether or not they were before the court.
In a long line of cases, however, concerned citizens, taxpayers and With respect to motions for intervention, Rule 19, Section 2 of the
legislators when specific requirements have been met have been Rules of Court requires an intervenor to possess a legal interest in
given standing in this Court. the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or
an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely
When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner assailing the affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the
constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must custody of the court of an officer thereof. While intervention is not
be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is a matter of right, the courts may permit it when the applicant
invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of shows facts that satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing
sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not intervention.
merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must
appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be In this case, the Court granted motions to intervene except that of
denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or intervenor Soriano, who asserts an interest as a taxpayer but failed
that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by to meet the standing requirement for bringing taxpayer’s suit. In
reason of the statute or act complained of. In fine, when the praying for the dismissal of the petitions, Soriano failed even to
proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact allege that the act of petitioners would result in illegal
that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. disbursement of public funds or in public money being deflected to
any improper purpose. Additionally, his mere interest as a member
In the case of a taxpayer, he is allowed to sue where there is a of the Bar does not suffice to clothe him with standing.
claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that pubic money
is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is b. Ripeness and Prematurity
wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, “it is a
unconstitutional law. Before he can invoke the power of judicial prerequisite that something had by then been accomplished or
performed by either branch before a court may come into the conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then our courts are
picture.” Only then may the courts pass on the validity of what was duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of
done, if and when the latter is challenged in an appropriate the government properly acted within such limits. This Court thus
proceeding. now applies this standard to the present controversy.
The instant petitions raise the issue of the validity of the filing of The Court held that it has no jurisdiction over the issue that goes
the second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice in into the merits of the second impeachment complaint. More
accordance with the House Impeachment Rules adopted by 12th importantly, any discussion of this would require this Court to make
Congress, the constitutionality of which is questioned. The a determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Such
questioned acts having been carried out, i.e. the second a determination is a purely political question which the Constitution
impeachment complaint had been filed with the House of has left to the sound discretion of the legislation.
Representatives and the 2001 Rules have already been
promulgated and enforced, the prerequisite that the alleged On the other hand, issues regarding the constitutionality of
unconstitutional act should be accomplished and performed before Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules
suit, has been complied with. adopted by the 12th Congress, as a result thereof, barring the
second impeachment complaint under Section 3(5) of Article XI of
c. Justiciability the Constitution, constitute the very lis mota or crux of the instant
Political questions are “those questions which, under the controversy.
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been 3. Conclusion
delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the This Court did not heed the call to adopt a hands-off stance as far
Government.” It is concerned with issues dependent upon the as the question of the constitutionality of initiating the
wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide is concerned.
Citing Chief Justice Concepcion, when he became a Constitutional The Court found the existence in full of all the requisite conditions
Commissioner: “…The powers of government are generally for its exercise of its constitutionally vested power and duty of the
considered divided into three branches: the Legislative, the judicial review over an issue whose resolution precisely called for
Executive, and the Judiciary. Each one is supreme within its own the construction or interpretation of a provision of the fundamental
sphere and independent of the others. Because of that supremacy law of the land. What lies in here is an issue of a genuine
power to determine whether a given law is valid or not is vested in constitutional material which only this Court can properly and
courts of justice… courts of justice determine the limits of powers competently address and adjudicate in accordance with the clear-
of the agencies and offices of the government as well as those of cut allocation of powers under our system of government. Face-to-
its officers. face with a matter or problem that squarely falls under the Court’s
jurisdiction, no other course of action can be had but for it to pass
The judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a upon that problem head on.
branch of government or any of its officials has acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to This Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and
constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of resolved on the merits only the main issue of whether the
jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice
but also a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature…” a transgressed the constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule.
duty which cannot be abdicated by the mere specter of the political Beyond this, it did not go about assuming jurisdiction where it had
law doctrine. none, nor indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly
political questions. Because it not at all the business of this Court
The determination of a truly political question from a non-justiciable to assert judicial dominance over the other two great branches of
political question lies in the answer to the question of whether the government.
there are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions
The Court, therefore, held sections 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 Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., which was filed
on October 23, 2003, is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of
Article XI of the Constitution.