Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Francisco v.

HRET

Fact:

The case at bar is a petition questioning the constitutionality of the impeachment proceedings being
held by the House of Representatives against Chief Justice Davide.

The first impeachment proceeding brought against the Chief Justice, together with other associate
justices, is by Joseph Estrada, for the alleged culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public
trust, and other high crimes. It proceeded due to good form but was later on dismissed due to lack of
substance.

Another impeachment proceeding was being brought against the Chief Justice, in a period less than the
one-year bar provided by the Constitution and the rules of the House of Representatives. This was
initiated by 2 representatives and was endorsed by many other representatives.

This resulted to many petitions by many individuals as well as associations questioning the
constitutionality of such move by Congress. The petitions were consolidated having raised similar issues.
The petitions contend that the second impeachment proceeding was in culpable violation of the
Constitution wherein there is a one-year bar before one can initiate impeachment proceedings against
the same individual. The first proceeding was less than a year away from the filing of the second
proceeding.

Congress mainly contended that the Supreme Court had no power to inquire about the impeachment
proceedings as it is the former which has the power to facilitate or administer impeachment
proceedings, as provided by the Constitution. If the Supreme Court interrupts and inquires about the
proceedings, it will disturb the doctrine of separation of powers as well as the doctrine of checks and
balances. The impeachment proceeding is in itself under the power of the Congress and is a political
question.

Issue:

1. w/n the second impeachment proceeding against Davide is constitutional?

2. w/n the impeachment proceeding was a political question wherein the SC cannot disturb it?
Held:

1. It is prevalent that the second impeachment proceeding against the Chief Justice is
unconstitutional. Under Article XI of our present Constitution, it is provided that with regard to the
impeachment of public officials such as the Chief Justice, there is a one-year bar provided. No
impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same official within a period of one year. The
term initiate refers to the filing of the case against the official. It starts when a complaint is filed with the
Committee of Justice of the House of Representatives. It is not initiated during the time when it is
verified by the other members of the House or when it is given to Senate for hearing.

2. It is said that the SC cannot question or inquire about the impeachment proceedings since it will
disturb the separation of power, check and balance between the branches of government, and that the
SC has vested interest in the issue.

The Constitution was equivocal in granting the judiciary, moreover the SC, the duty to settle
controversies that are legally demandable and enforceable. It has been vested the duty to check if there
is any grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or office of government. In this petition
wherein the constitutionality of the impeachment proceeding is questioned, no one has the power to
interpret the fundamental law of the land and answer the issue of constitutionality other than the SC.
Given such, even if the legislative that commences and administers impeachment proceedings, it is not a
bar for the SC to inquire about their actions especially if constitutionality is involved.

advice every Friday at 6pm.

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY- EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 284

Category: Constitutional Law

Civil Liberties Union VS. Executive Secretary

FACTS:

Petitioners: Ignacio P. Lacsina, Luis R. Mauricio, Antonio R. Quintos and Juan T. David for petitioners in
83896 and Juan T. David for petitioners in 83815. Both petitions were consolidated and are being
resolved jointly as both seek a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 issued
by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987.
Executive Order No. 284, according to the petitioners allows members of the Cabinet, their
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other than government offices or positions in addition
to their primary positions. The pertinent provisions of EO 284 is as follows:

Section 1: A cabinet member, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive officials of the
Executive Department may in addition to his primary position, hold not more than two positions in the
government and government corporations and receive the corresponding compensation therefor.

Section 2: If they hold more positions more than what is required in section 1, they must relinquish the
excess position in favor of the subordinate official who is next in rank, but in no case shall any official
hold more than two positions other than his primary position.

Section 3: AT least 1/3 of the members of the boards of such corporation should either be a secretary, or
undersecretary, or assistant secretary.

The petitioners are challenging EO 284’s constitutionality because it adds exceptions to Section 13 of
Article VII other than those provided in the constitution. According to the petitioners, the only
exceptions against holding any other office or employment in government are those provided in the
Constitution namely: 1. The Vice President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section
3 par.2 of Article VII. 2. The secretary of justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by
virtue of Sec. 8 of article VIII.

Issue:

Whether or not Executive Order No. 284 is constitutional.

Decision:

No. It is unconstitutional. Petition granted. Executive Order No. 284 was declared null and void.

Ratio:
In the light of the construction given to Section 13 of Article VII, Executive Order No. 284 is
unconstitutional. By restricting the number of positions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or
assistant secretaries may hold in addition their primary position to not more that two positions in the
government and government corporations, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or
employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Sec. 13 of Article VII of the 1987
Constitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.

The phrase “unless otherwise provided in this constitution” must be given a literal interpretation to refer
only to those particular instances cited in the constitution itself: Sec. 3 Art VII and Sec. 8 Art. VIII.

The explained that the phrase “unless otherwise provided in this constitution” must be given a literal
interpretation to refer only to those particular instances cited in the constitution itself which are Section
3 of Article VII (for VP) and Section 8 of Article VIII (for Secretary of Justice).

Citizenship)

FACTS: Herein petitioner is a son of a Chinese citizen who has been elected into office before the
adoption of the Constitution, wherein said petitioner was still a minor. Respondents seeks to cancel
petitioner’s registration certificates of vessels and rescind the sale of vessels from the same on the
ground that the latter is allegedly not a Filipino citizen and therefore not qualified to operate and own
vessels of Philippine registry.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is a Filipino citizen.

HELD: Yes, because the petitioner, aside from the fact that he was a minor at the time of the adoption of
the Constitution, follows the citizenship of his father who having been elected to public office before the
adoption of the said Constitution became a Filipino citizen as provided by the same (Art. IV, 1987
Constitution)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen