HOME LAW NOTES + PH ELECTIONS + CASE DIGESTS + TRAVEL GAMES + TOYS

LAW TECH WORLD

Law, Technology and the World

You are here: Home 2013 August Case Digest: FRANCISCO ET AL v HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

CASE DIGEST: FRANCISCO ET AL V HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEARCH

Published by arce on August 5, 2013 | Leave a response

FRANCISCO ET AL v HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FACTS
Law Tech World
On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, 581 likes
sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which
directed the Committee on Justice “to conduct an investigation, in aid of
legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Like Page
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund
(JDF).” On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an Be the first of your friends to like this

impeachment complaint (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 the public trust
POPULAR POSTS
and other high crimes.” The House Committee on Justice ruled on
October 13, 2003 that the first impeachment complaint was “sufficient in
Pokemon Revolution: How
form,”9 but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being
to Get to Giovanni in Silph
insufficient in substance.10 To date, the Committee Report to this effect
Co Maze (28,276)
has not yet been sent to the House in plenary in accordance with the said
Pokemon Revolution: Eevee
Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. Four months and three
Mission at Game Corner
weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the first complaint or on
Guide (21,111)
October 23, 2003, a day after the House Committee on Justice voted to
Pokemon Revolution: How
dismiss it, the second impeachment complaint11 was filed with the
to Get HM01 – Cut (18,741)
Secretary General of the House12 by Representatives Gilberto C.
2014 Case Digest: Arigo v.
Teodoro, Jr. (First District, Tarlac) and Felix William B. Fuentebella
Swift (18,636)
(Third District, Camarines Sur) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
2017 Case Digest: Estipona
Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by
v. Lobrigo and People
above-mentioned House Resolution. This second impeachment
(15,503)
complaint was accompanied by a “Resolution of
2015 Case Digest: Diocese of
Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the
Bacolod v. COMELEC
Members of the House of Representatives.13 Since the first
(14,473)
impeachment complaint never made it to the floor for resolution,
Case Digest: Estrada v.
respondent House of Representatives concludes that the one year bar
Escritor (14,306)
prohibiting the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same
Pokemon Revolution: How
officials could not have been violated as the impeachment complaint
to Get to Articuno in
against Chief Justice Davide and seven Associate Justices had not been
Seafoam Island (14,038)
initiated as the House of Representatives, acting as the collective body,
Case Digest: LA BUGAL
has yet to act on it. Opposing petitioners on the other hand interpreted
B’LAAN TRIBAL
the word “initiate” to mean the filing of the complaint. Since there was
ASSOCIATION… (13,940)
already a first complaint that never got through the Committee, no
Case Digest: THE
impeachment complaint maybe filed until the lapse of the 1 year period.
PROVINCE OF NORTH
ISSUE/S COTABATO, et al .… (13,841)

1. When is an impeachment proceeding initiated? 2. Is the second

impeachment complaint valid?
Creative Commons License
HELD
This work by Law Tech World is
1. Art. XI, Sec. 3, pars. (1), (5) & (6) of the Constitution states: licensed under a Creative
(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to Commons Attribution 4.0
initiate all cases of impeachment. International License.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one year.
(6) 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.
“Initiate” of course is understood by ordinary men to mean, as
dictionaries do, to begin, to commence, or set going. As Webster’s
Third New International Dictionary of the English Language
concisely puts it, it means “to perform or facilitate the first action,”
The Court pried the Constitutional Convention Records to ascertain
the intent of the framers of the Constitution. The framers really
intended “initiate” to mean the filing of the verified complaint to the
Committee on Justice of the Lower House. This is also based on the
procedure of the U.S. Congress where an impeachment is initiated
upon filing of the impeachment complaint.
2. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing
of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee
on Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3
(5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has
been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed
against the same official within a one year period following Article
XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

Dictionary Constitutions Course Trials

RELATED ARTICLES:

Case Digest: ERNESTO Case Digest: IN RE:

FRANCISCO, JR., et al. REQUEST OF CLERK
v . HOUSE OF OF COURT
REPRESENTATIVES, ADMINISTRATOR
et al.
Case Digest: CUENCO
Case Digest: ROMULO v OMBUDSMAN
v YNIGUEZ

Case Digest: ESPIÑA v.

Case Digest: CERUJANO, et al.
KILOSBAYAN
FOUNDATION ET AL
v ERMITA

Share this:

Posted in Case Digest

LEAVE A REPLY

Comment

Name * Email *

Website

POST COMMENT

PREVIOUS NEXT

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2020 Law Tech World.

Powered by WordPress and Live Wire.