Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. vs.

The House of Representatives

G.R. No. 160261
November 10, 2003
Facts:
A verified impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and
seven other Associate Justices of the Court was filled by President Joseph E. Estrada
for culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and, other high
crimes but was dismissed for insufficiency of substance. Another verified
impeachment complaint was filled by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr., First
District, Tarlac and Felix William B. Fuentebella, Third District, Camarines Sur against
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., alleging underpayment of the COLA of the
members and personnel of the judiciary from the JDF and unlawful disbursement of
said fund for various infrastructure projects and acquisition of service vehicles and
other equipment. 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. The complaint was set to be transmitted
to the Senate for appropriate action. Petitions were filed to stop the illegal spending
of public funds for the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice.
Petitioners contended that the filing of second impeachment complaint against the
Chief Justice was barred under Article XI, Sec. 3 (5) of the 1987. Petitioners prayed
that the House Impeachment Rules be declared null and void.
Issues:
1. Whether petitioners have locus standi.
2. Whether the petitions were justiciable or ripe.
3. Whether the House has "exclusive" power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
4. Whether the Senate has "sole" power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
5. Whether the House Rules on Impeachment visavis Section 3(5) of Article XI of the
Constitution is constitutional.
Decision:
Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings
are unconstitutional. The second impeachment complaint against Cheif Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. was barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the
Constitution.

1. Yes, the petitioners have locus standi. As taxpayers, petitioners had sufficient
standing to file the petitions to prevent disbursement of public funds amounting to
millions of pesos for an illegal act.
2. Yes, the petitions were justiciable or ripe for adjudication because there was an
actual controversy involving rights that are legally demandable. Political questions
are beyond judicial review because of the doctrine of separation of powers. The
Court has the exclusive power to resolve with definitiveness the issues of
constitutionality. It is duty bound to take cognizance of the petitions to exercise the
power of judicial review as the guardian of the Constitution. Under Section 1, Article
VIII of the Constitution, it is the power and duty of the court 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.
3. Yes, the House has "exclusive" power to initiate all cases of impeachment under
Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution. Constitution also provides for several
limitations to the exercise of such power as embodied in Section 3(2), (3), (4) and
(5), Article XI of the Constitution. These limitations include the manner of filing,
required vote to impeach, and the one year bar on the impeachment of one and the
same official.
4. Yes, the Senate has "sole" power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
Section 3(6) , Article XI of the Constitution states that 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. No, the House Rules on Impeachment visavis Section 3(5) of Article XI of the
Constitution is unconstitutional. The second impeachment complaint filed against
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. was unconstitutional under Article XI, Sec. 3 (5) of
the 1987 Constitution.