FRANCISCO vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No.

160261, November 10, 2003 FACTS: On November 28, 2001, the 12th Congress of the House of Representatives adopted and approved the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings, superseding the previous House Impeachment Rules approved by the 11th Congress. On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, which 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. On June 2, 2003, former President Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide and seven Associate Justices for culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of trust and other high crimes. The complaint was endorsed by the House of Representatives and was referred to the House Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003. The house Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first impeachment complaint was sufficient in form, but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance. Four months and three weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the first complaint or on October 23, 2003, a day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment complaint was filed with the Secretary General of the House by the House of Representatives against Chief Justice Davide, founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry inititated by abovementioned House Resolution. The second impeachment complaint was accompanied by a Resolution of Endoresment/Impeachment signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of Representatives. Consequently, various petitions were filed with the Supreme Court against the House of Representatives et.al., most of which contend that the second filing of impeachment complaint is a violation of the Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution that No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. ISSUE: Whether or not the power of judicial review may extend to determine the validity of the second impeachment complaint. RULING: The Court may determine the validity of the second impeachment. The power of judicial review by the Court is conferred on the judicial branch of the government, as expressed in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Consitution: Section 1. The Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and 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 enforeceabe, 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. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, but it does not follow from the fact that the three branches are to be kept separate and distinct. The Constitution intended the three powers to be unrestricted and independent of each other. It is provided within the Constitution the system of check and balance to ensure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. Wherein, 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. 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 unconstituional. The second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

PORTUGALETE, Ayla Rae A.