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.