CASE DIGEST:

Francisco vs. HoR

GR No. 160261
November 10, 2003

Facts:
2001, November 28- The HoR of the 12th Congress of the Philippines adopted the
Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings replacing what
had been adopted by the preceding the Congress.
2002, July 22-

A resolution was adopted by the HoR to the Committee on Justice

to conduct an investigation on the disbursements and
expenditures of the Judiciary Development Fund by the then Chief
Justice, Hilario G. Davide Jr.

2003, June 2-

An impeachment complaint was filed by former president Joseph

Estrada against the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices of
the supreme Court. Its grounds is the culpable violation of the
Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes

2003, August 5- After the endorsing the complaint, the HoR representatives
referred it to the House Committee on Justice pursuant to Section
3(2) of Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
2003, October 13- The aforementioned committee stated complaint because
although it is sufficient in form, it is insufficient in substance.
2003, October 23-

The complaint was dismissed

Four months and Three Weeks After- Second Impeachment Complaint was filed,
accompanied by signatures of the 1/3 of the HoR.
Herein After-

Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus were filed by a

lot of complainants. The common reason of these petition is its
unconstitutionality pursuant to Section 5 of Article XI of the 1987
Philippine Constitution that stipulates the prohibition of filing an
impeachment complaint more than once in one year.

Issue(s):
1. Whether the power of judicial review extends to those arising from
impeachment proceedings
2. Whether the second impeachment complaint is constitutional
3. Whether the resolution lies on the domain of politics or judiciary

Ruling:
The Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment
Proceedings second Impeachment Complaint are unconstitutional.

1. & 3. The power of judicial review on the issue is valid and the resolution
lies on the judiciary
- it is stipulated in the Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution
Section 1.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.
- it is established in the jurisprudence, Angara Vs. Electoral
Commission that judicial review is significant in maintaining the system
of checks and balances which the constitution aims to establish in the
government of the Philippines.
- Philippine Supreme Court is different from the U.S. Supreme Court as
the latters power of judicial review is discretionary in nature while the
formers is not only a power but a duty ; thus a mandatory
responsibility.
2.

The Second Impeachment Complaint is unconstitutional

-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.
-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.