Law 121 CONSTI 1

Francisco v House of Representatives GR No. 160261, November 10, 2003

How to read the Constitution

FACTS:
 Petitioner: Ernesto B. Francisco Jr.
 Respondent: House of Representatives (HOR)
 Late 2001 – HOR of the 12th congress adopted its Rules of Procedure in Impeachment
Proceedings; Sec. 16 & 17 state that impeachment proceedings are deemd initiated
 If House Committee on Justice deems complaint sufficient in substance; or
 House itself affirms or overturns findings of House Committee on Justice on the
substance of the complaint; or
 By filing or endorsement before the HOR Secretary General by 1/3 of the members
of the House.
 HOR passed a resolution directing Committee on Justice to conduct an investigation in aid of
legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by CJ Davide of the
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)
 June 2 2003 – P. Estrada filed with the Office of the Secretary General of the HOR the first
impeachment complaint vs CJ Davide and 7 other Associate Justices of the Court for
violation of the constitution, betrayal of public trust and committing high crimes.
 October 22 2003 – House Committee on Justice dismissed complaint – sufficient in form but
not in substance. (WHY IN FORM BUT NOT IN SUBSTANCE?)
 October 23 2003 – Gilbert Teodoro (rep of tarlac 1st district), Felix Fuentebella (rep Cam Sur
3rd district) filed a second impeachment complaint with the Office of the Secretary General of
the HOR vs CJ Davide alleging underpayment of the COLA of the members and
personnel of the judiciary from the JDF, and unlawful disbursement of fund for
various infra projects & acquisition of service vehicles and other equipment.
 Attached was a Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment signed by at least 1/3 of
HOR members.
 Petitions were filed with SC by members of the bar, HOR and private individuals asserting
their rights as taxpayers to stop illegal spending of public funds for the impeachment
proceedings against CJ Davide
 Filing of second impeachment complaint barred under Article XI Sec. 3 (5) of the
1987 Consti  “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within the period of one year”
 SC held that the second impeachment complaint was unconstitutional under Art XI Sec. 3(5)
of the 1987 Constitution.

ISSUE RATIO DECIDENDI

W/N certiorari  Article VIII Sec 1 of the 1987 Constitution – judicial power vested on
jurisdiction of the court the SC to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
may be invoked? - YES legally demandable and enforceable.
o SC checks on the other departments in the exercise of their
power to determine the law
o Declare executive and legislative acts void if they violate the
Constitution.
o Violation of Art XI Sect 3(5) of the constitution is within the
competence of the SC to decide.
 o Petitions to prevent disbursement of public funds for
proceedings of the 2nd impeachment complaint were ripe for
adjudication because there was an actual controversy
(unconstitutionality of 2nd impeachment complaint) involving
rights that are legally demandable (rights as taxpayers of
petitioners)
W/N filing of second  Second impeachment complaint falls under the one-year bar under
impeachment complaint the said provision (June 2 2003 to October 23 2003, 4 months)
violates Article XI Sec.
3(5) of the 1987
Constitution? – YES
W/N Sec 16 & 17 of  3 principles considered: verba legis; ambiguity  intent of the
Rule V of the Rules of framers; consti interpreted as a whole
Procedure in o Sec 16&17: “impeachment complaints are deemed initiated”
Impeachment o ordinary meaning  “to begin”
Proceedings approved o Intent of the framers  filing of the impeachment complaint
by the HoR are coupled with taking initial action by Congress on the complaint
unconstitutional? - YES (from the records of the Constitutional Convention) (filing and
referral)
o Interpreted as a whole  contravenes Sec. 3(5) Article XI since
the rules give the term “initiate” a meaning different from filing
and referral. (WHAT’S THE MEANING OF INITIATE IN SEC
3(5) OF ART XI?)

RULING:
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
unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr. which was filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B.
Fuentebella with the Office of the Secretary General of the House of Representatives on October
23, 2003 is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.
SO ORDERED.

NOTES:
Article VIII Sec 1 of the 1987 Constitution
 Supreme Court has the power of judicial review
 Moderating power to determine the proper allocation of powers of the different government
branches and to direct the course of government along constitutional channels
 Juidicial power – power of the court to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable
Verba legis
 Words used in the constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except when technical
terms are employed
Ratio legis est anima
 “the reason of the law is the spirit of the law”
 Where there is ambiguity, the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance
with the intent of its framers
Ut Magis valeat quam pereat
 “That the thing may rather have effect than be destroyed”
 The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole