Bold Italic - Statues, Rules, Cases; Bold Underline - Topic emphasized; [Green ink – see notes for further

info]; Blue ink

- case and facts; Red ink - definitions, terms; (TOPIC) - FOCUS ON THESE

[Case Name] Francisco v. House of Representatives

[G.R. No., Date] G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
[Ponente] CARPIO MORALES, J.

Topic: Effectivity and Constitutional Interpretation

Doctrine: Interpretation of the Constitution

1) that, whenever possible, the words in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning;
2) where there is ambiguity, the Constitution must be interpreted according to the intent of the framers; and
3) the Constitution must be interpreted as a whole.

Super Summary:

RELEVANT FACTS:
● November 28, 2001 - 12th Congress of the House of Representatives (HoR) adopted and approved the Rules
of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings, superseding the previous House Impeachment Rules approved by
the 11th Congress. Additional Info #1
● July 22, 2002 - HoR adopted a resolution that directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation,
in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."

House Committee on Justice

● Filing of complaint under Section 3(2) of Article XI On August 5, 2003 - Erap files first impeachment complaint
against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this court for "culpable violation of
the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and other high crimes." Section 3(2) of Article XI of the
Constitution (filing of Member of the HoR by majority vote of all its Members)
● First dismissal for being insufficient in substance October 13, 2003 - the House Committee on Justice ruled
that the first impeachment complaint was "sufficient in form," but voted to dismiss the same on October 22,
2003 for being insufficient in substance.
● Second impeachment complaint October 23,2003 - Teodoro and Fuentebella files second impeachment
complaint against CJ Davide, founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry. The second
impeachment complaint was accompanied by a "resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at least
one-third of all the Members of the House of Representatives.

Supreme Court
● Petitioner Francisco - the second impeachment complaint is not valid under Article XI, Section 3 (5)
“(n)o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of
one year.”
- This was a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (several rules of a subsequent congress
should be unconstitutional, the court must issue mandamus for the HoR to comply with the
constitution and return the second complaint or strike it off the records, and finally to permanently
 prohibit the proceeding of the HoR with the second impeachment complaint)
● Several petitions were then filed with similar contentions
Several petitions were filed with this Court by members of the bar, members of the House of Representatives,
as well as private individuals, all asserting their rights, among others, as taxpayers to stop the illegal spending
of public funds for the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice. Petitioners plead for this Court to
exercise the power of judicial review to determine the validity of the second impeachment complaint.
Additional Info #5
● Manifestation by HoR Speaker de Venecia that it would be encroachment on the power of the HoR for the
Supreme Court to hear the case
October 28, 2003 - House of Representatives Speaker Jose de Venecia submitted a Manifestation to the
Supreme Court that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case since it would mean an encroachment on
the power of HoR, which is a co-equal branch of government. TL;DR - He is invoking Checks and Balances and
Separation of Powers as the reason why Judicial Review does not cover Impeachment Proceedings. Additional
Info #3 Additional Info #4

Issue #1: W/N judicial review conflicts with checks and balances and separation of powers.
(TOPIC)
YES/NO - NO

RATIO DECIDENDI… [Legal Basis: General Rule. Specific Rule. Exception.]

DOCTRINE: Interpretation of the Constitution (TOPIC)

In Hierarchy
1. Verba Legis the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical
terms are employed. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration.
- We look to the language of the document itself in our search for its meaning. We do not of course
stop there, but that is where we begin. It is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional
provisions are couched express the objective sought to be attained. They are to be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed in which case the significance thus
attached to them prevails. 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.

2. Ratio legis est anima The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its
framers Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary. Reiterated in Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
- A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention underlying the provision under
consideration. Thus, it has been held that the Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind
the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or
remedied. A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times, and the
condition and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. The object is to ascertain the
reason which induced the framers of the Constitution to enact the particular provision and the
purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the whole as to make the words
 consonant to that reason and calculated to effect that purpose.

3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole. Thus, in Chiongbian v. De
Leon. Also in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary
- The members of the Constitutional Convention could not have dedicated a provision of our
Constitution merely for the benefit of one person without considering that it could also affect others.
When they adopted subsection 2, they permitted, if not willed, that said provision should function to
the full extent of its substance and its terms, not by itself alone, but in conjunction with all other
provisions of that great document

APPLICATION: The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be allowed to defeat
another. The power of judicial review DOES NOT upset the system of checks and balances in contrast to the
arguments of House Speaker De Venecia and Senator Pimentel. In fact, it maintains and enforces the separation of
powers. (TOPIC)
- Both are integral components of the calibrated system of independence and interdependence that ensures
that no branch of government acts beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution. Additional Info #2

Issue #2: W/N the impeachment proceedings are subject to the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, and
therefore within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

YES/NO - YES

RATIO DECIDENDI… [Legal Basis: General Rule. Specific Rule. Exception.]

● Although Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution states the Senate has the sole power, authority and jurisdiction
as the impeachment court to try and decide impeachment cases, under Section 1 of Article 8 of the 1987
Constitution, “the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law. 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 the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.” This means that the SC has the constitutional obligation of ensuring that
other government agencies act within their constitutional mandate and do not go beyond their jurisdiction.

● In this case, the SC is legally mandated by the 1987 Constitution to exercise its power of judicial review over
the issues in the impeachment proceedings. Furthermore, the power of judicial review is essential for the
maintenance and enforcement of the separation of powers and the balancing of powers among the three
departments of government through the definition and maintenance of the boundaries of authority and
control between them.

● Also, in determining the scope of the power of judicial review, the SC turns to the Constitution which utilizes
the three principles of constitutional construction. SEE ISSUE #1 - In Hierarchy

● It is important to note the four essential requisites for Judicial Review. These are: 1) an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; 2) the person challenging the act must have standing to
challenge; he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; 3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
 earliest possible opportunity; and 4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

● For the first requisite, the controversy being faced is the constitutionality of the filing of the second
impeachment against Chief Justice Davide. For the second requisite, the petitioners have standing as
taxpayers; members of Congress; citizens; and members of the bar and of the legal profession whose rights
were supposedly violated by the alleged unconstitutional second filing of impeachment of the House of
Representatives. For the third requisite, the question of constitutionality was immediately raised after the
second impeachment was filed. For the fourth requisite, the issue of constitutionality of the filing of the
second impeachment is the crux of the controversy.

● Hence, the SC is legally qualified and constitutionally-bound to perform its duty to pass over the impeachment
proceedings and determine its constitutionality.

EXCEPTION

● Whether the offenses alleged in the Second impeachment complaint constitute valid impeachable offenses
under the Constitution. - Political Questions are beyond the scope of the Court’s judicial power under Art. 8
Sec. 1 of the Constitution. Any discussion of this issue would require the Court to determine what constitutes
an impeachable offense. Such determination is a purely political question, which is non-justiciable and for the
legislature to decide. Additional Info #6 Lis Mota - Courts will not touch the issue of constitutionality unless it
is truly unavoidable and is the very lis mota or crux of the controversy (as applied in Sotto v. Commission on
Elections and Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform).

Issue #3: W/N Sections 16 and 17 are deemed unconstitutional under Art. 11 Sec. 3 of the Constitution

YES/NO - YES

RATIO DECIDENDI… [Legal Basis: General Rule. Specific Rule. Exception.]

● Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules of the 12th session clearly contravene Art. 11
Sec. 3 Par. 5 as they give the term “initiate” a meaning different from “filing.”
● Article 11 Sec 3 of the Constitution states “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one year”
● The provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules, which state that
impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated:
(1) If there is a finding by the House Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is
sufficient in substance, or

(2) Once the House itself affirms or overturns the finding of the Committee on Justice that the verified
complaint and/or resolution is insufficient in substance, or

(3) By the filing or endorsement before the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives of a verified
complaint or a resolution of impeachment by at least 1/3 of the members of the House
 Issue #4: W/N the second impeachment complaint is barred under Art. 11 Sec. 3.

YES/NO - Yes

RATIO DECIDENDI… [Legal Basis: General Rule. Specific Rule. Exception.]

● The Court determines that the “initiation” takes place by the act of filing the impeachment complaint and
referring to the House Committee on Justice. Considering that the first complaint was filed on June 2, 2003,
and the second on October 23, 2003, the filing of the second complaint violates Art. 11 Sec. 3 Par. 5 of the
Constitution, which prohibits the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same impeachable officer
within one year.

DISPOSITION

WHEREFORE

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 by
Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with the Office of the Secretary General of
the House of Representatives on October 23, 2003 is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the
Constitution.

Opinions

Concurring:

Dissenting:

Additional Info

From the Case:

1. 12TH CONGRESS NEW RULES - Rule V

Section 16. Impeachment Proceedings deemed Initiated
In cases where a Member of the House files a verified complaint of impeachment or a citizen files a verified
complaint that is endorsed by a Member of the House through a resolution of endorsement against an
impeachable officer, impeachment proceedings against such official are deemed initiated on the day the
 Committee on Justice finds that the verified complaint and/or resolution against such official, as the case may
be, is sufficient in substance, or on the date the House votes to overturn or affirm the finding of the said
Committee that the verified complaint and/or resolution, as the case may be, is not sufficient in substance. In
cases where a verified complaint or a resolution of impeachment is filed or endorsed, as the case may be, by
at least one third (1/3) of the Members of the House, impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated at the
time of the filing of such verified complaint or resolution of impeachment with the Secretary General.
Section 17. Bar Against Initiation Of Impeachment Proceedings.
Within a period of one (1) year from the date impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated as provided in
Section 16 hereof, no impeachment proceedings, as such, can be initiated against the same official.

2. Article VIII Section of the Constitution - The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.

Angara v. Electoral Commission - In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ
which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and
among the integral or constituent units thereof .

3. House Speaker De Venecia and Senator Pimentel assert that the Constitution has excluded impeachment
proceedings from the coverage of judicial review. Article XI Section 3 of the Constitution - The House of
Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. It is the position of
respondents Speaker De Venecia, et al. that impeachment is a political action which cannot assume a judicial
character. Hence, any question, issue or incident arising at any stage of the

4. For his part, intervenor Senator Pimentel contends that the Senate's "sole power to try" impeachment cases
Section 3 Article VIII of the Constitution (1) entirely excludes the application of judicial review over it; and
Rollo, G.R. No. 160261 at 275-292.(2) necessarily includes the Senate’s power to determine constitutional
questions relative to impeachment proceedings.

Section 3 Article VIII of the Constitution - The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President
of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person
shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

5. In Angara v. Electoral Commission, judicial review is indeed an integral component of the delicate system
of checks and balances which, together with the corollary principle of separation of powers
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through
express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from
the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be
absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate
system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the
government[. . . .] And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the
other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and
legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution. The power of judicial review is essential for the
maintenance and enforcement of the separation of powers and the balancing of powers among the three
departments of government through the definition and maintenance of the boundaries of authority and
control between them.

6. Tañada v. Cuenco [T]he term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary
 parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the language of Corpus Juris Secundum, it refers to
"those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or
in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the
Government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

Class Notes: