Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FRANCISCO,
JR., Petitioners, v. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED
BY SPEAKER JOSE DE VENECIA, THE SENATE, REPRESENTED BY
SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON, REPRESENTATIVE
GILBERTO C. TEODORO, JR. AND REPRESENTATIVE FELIX WILLIAM B.
FUENTEBELLA,Respondents);
Promulgated:
_________________
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
SEPARATE OPINION
TINGA, J.:
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. himself, the same person who co-
[9]
(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.
on the Senate, the sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment. But the power of impeachment is not inherently
[12]
sixty days after the referral, and after hearing and upon majority
vote of all its members, the proper committee shall submit its
report to the House, together with the corresponding resolution,
and the House shall calendar the same for consideration within
ten days from receipt. No impeachment proceedings shall be
[19]
initiated against the same official more than once within a period
of one year.
[20]
xxx
xxx
political
where it involves the legality and not the wisdom of the act
complained of, or if it pertains to issues which are inherently
[28]
principle that binds and guides all courts of the land, and it
should likewise govern the impeachment court, limited as its
functions may be. There must be an express grant of authority in
the Constitution empowering the Senate to pass upon the
House Rules on Impeachment.
In Perfecto vs. Meer, the Court passed upon the claim for a
[58]
Thus, in the cited cases the Court deviated from its self-
imposed policy of prudence and restraint, expressed in
pronouncements of its distaste of cases which apparently cater to
the ostensibly self-serving concerns of the Court or its individual
members, and proceeded to resolve issues involving the
interpretation of the Constitution and the independence of the
judiciary. We can do no less in the present petitions. As was
declared in Sanidad, this Court in view of the paramount
[64]
....
A review of the history of Section 3 (1) shows that this is not so.
RULE V
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
[1]
See Aquino, Jr. v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-35546, September 17, 1974, 59 SCRA
183; Aquino, Jr. v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-4004, 31 January 1975, 62 SCRA 275; Aquino, Jr. v.
Military Commission No. 2, G.R. No. 37364, May 9, 1975, 63 SCRA, 546 (1975).
[2]
See Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 151-A Phil. 35 (1973); Occea v. Comelec,
191 Phil. 371 (1981); Mitra, Jr. v. Comelec, 191 Phil. 412 (1981).
[3]
See Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989, 177 SCRA 668.
[4]
See Palma, Sr. v. Fortich, G.R. No. L-59679, January 29, 1987, 147 SCRA 397.
[5]
See De Leon v. Esguerra, G.R. No. L-78059, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 602.
[6]
See Enrile v. Salazar, G.R. No. 92163, June 5, 1990, 186 SCRA 217.
[7]
See Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001, 353 SCRA 452.
[8]
See Note 7.
[10]
Justices Carpio and Corona.
[11]
Article XI, Section 3 (1), 1987 Constitution.
[12]
Article XI, Section 3 (6), 1987 Constitution.
[13]
Article IX, Section 2, 1935 Constitution, as amended.
[14]
Article IX, Section 3, 1935 Constitution, as amended.
[15]
The United States Constitution contains just two provisions pertaining to the
power of the Congress to impeach and to try impeachment. The House of Representatives
. . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. (Article I, Section 2, par. 5, US
Constitution); The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When
sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the
United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted
without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. (Article I, Section 3, par.
6). The class of officers subject to impeachment and the grounds for removal from office by
impeachment are prescribed in Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The
President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.
[16]
Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1973 Constitution. The Batasang Pambansa shall have the
exclusive power to initiate, try, and decide all cases of impeachment. Upon the filing of a
verified complaint, the Batasang Pambansa may initiate impeachment by a vote of at least
one-fifth of all its Members. No official shall be convicted without the concurrence of at
least two-thirds of all the Members thereof. When the Batasang Pambansa sits in
impeachment cases, its Members shall be on oath or affirmation.
[17]
See Sec. 3 (1), Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[18]
See Sec. 3 (2), Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[19]
See Sec. 3 (2), Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[20]
See Sec. 3 (5), Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[21]
See Romulo v. Yiguez, 225 Phil. 221 (1986).
[22]
Daza v. Singson, G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989, 180 SCRA 496.
[23]
Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, September 26, 1991, 201 SCRA 792, 795-796.
[24]
Arroyo v. De Venecia, August 14, 1997, 277 SCRA 311.
[25]
63 Phil. 139 (1936).
A controversy in which a present and fixed claim of right is asserted against one
[27]
who has an interest in contesting it; rights must be declared upon existing state of facts
and not upon state of facts that may or may not arise in future. See BLACKS LAW
DICTIONARY, 865.
Daza v. Singson, supra note 33. See also Taada v. Cuenco, 100 Phil. 101 (1975).
[28]
A question is political, and not judicial, is that it is a matter which is to be exercised by the
people in their primary political capacity, or that it has been specifically delegated to some
other department or particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act.
[29]
IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2003, 338 SCRA 81.
[30]
346 Phil. 321 (1997).
[31]
Ibid at 358.
such rules must effectively carry out the purpose of Section 3 of Article XI. See Section 3
(8), Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[35]
103 Phil. 1051 (1957).
[36]
Id. at 1088.
[37]
129 Phil. 7 (1967).
[38]
Id at 22-23.
[39]
G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976, 73 SCRA 333.
[40]
Id. at 359-361.
[41]
506 U.S. 224 (1993).
Chemirinsky, Constitutional Law Principles and Policies, 2 nd Ed. (2002); Aspen Law
[42]
[43]
Supra, note 33.
[44]
Garcia v. Corona, 378 Phil. 848, 885. J. Quisumbing, concurring (1999).
See, e.g., Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001, 351
[45]
SCRA 44, 53-54; Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15,
2000, 338 SCRA 81, 99; Sec. Guingona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 415, 425 (1998);
Board of Optometry v. Hon. Colet, 328 Phil. 1187, 1205 (1996); Joya v. PCGG, G.R.
No. 96541, August 24, 1993, 255 SCRA 568, 575; Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines,
G.R. No. 101538, June 23, 1992, 210 SCRA 256; Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
100883, December 2, 1991, 204 SCRA 516, 522; Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR, G.R.
No. 86889, December 4, 1990, 192 SCRA 51, 58; National Economic Protectionism
Association v. Ongpin, G.R. No. 67752, April 10, 1989, 171 SCRA 657, 663-664.
[46]
Deputy Speaker Raul Gonzales and Congressman Salacnib Baterina.
[47]
G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994, 235 SCRA 506.
[48]
Id. at 520.
[49]
346 U.S. 249 (1953).
This case and rationale was cited by amicus curiae Dean Raul C. Pangalangan
[50]
during the hearing on these petitions to support his belief that the petitioners had standing
to bring suit in this case.
ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white" but
also because "even the more specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading
gradually from one extreme to the other." Springer v. Government, 277 U. S., 189
(1928). Since the power of the legislature to impeach and try impeachment cases is not
inherent, the Holmesian dictum will find no application in this case, because such authority
is of limited constitutional grant, and cannot be presumed to expand beyond what is laid
down in the Constitution.
[52]
Section 3 (6), Article XI.
[53]
Abbot v. Mapayo, G.R. No. 134102, 6 July 2000, 335 SCRA 265, 270.
citing Jefferson, Sec. XXXV; Reed, Sec. 224; Cushings Legislative Assemblies, Sec. 739. Op.
Cit. 536-537 citing Jefferson, Sec. XVII, Hughes, Sec. 694.
[55]
Impeachment Trial or Resignation? Where do we stand? What must we do? (An
updated Position Paper of Kilosbayan, Bantay Katarungan and Bantayog ng mga Bayani
Foundations). http://www.mydestiny.net/~livewire/kilosbayan/paper6.htm.
GMA
[56]
Wont Lift A Finger To Bail Out
Nani. See http://www.newsflash.org/2002/11/pe/pe002423.htm.
[57]
Resolution of the Senate dated November 29, 2000.
[58]
85 Phil. 552 (1950).
[59]
Id. at 553.
[60]
93 Phil 696 (1953).
[61]
Id. at 700.
[62]
86 Phil. 429 (1950).
[63]
Id. at 437-438.
[64]
Supra note 38.
[65]
See Sec. 7, Art. VI thereof.
[66]
109 Phil. 863 (1960).
[67]
II RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 272.
[68]
Abraham, The Pillars and Politics of Judicial Independence in the United States,
Judicial Independence in the Age of Democracy, edited by Peter H. Rusell and David M.
OBrien, p. 28; Published, 2000, The University Press of Virginia.