Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In the case, no rights of private individuals are involved but only those of a
member who, insteadof seeking redress in the House, chose to transfer the
dispute to the Court.The matter complained of concerns a matter of internal
procedure of the House with which theCourt should not be concerned. The
claim is not that there was no quorum but only that Rep.Arroyo was
effectively prevented from questioning the presence of a quorum. Rep.
Arroyosearlier motion to adjourn for lack of quorum had already been
defeated, as the roll call establishedthe existence of a quorum. The question
of quorum cannot be raised repeatedly especially when thequorum is
obviously present for the purpose of delaying the business of the House.
Francisco vs. House of Representatives(GR 160261, 10 November 2003)En
Banc, Carpio Morales (J): 1 concurs, 3 wrote separate concurring opinions to
which 4 concur, 2 wrote concurringand dissenting separate opinions to which
2 concur.Facts: On 28 November 2001, the 12th Congress of the House of
Representatives adopted and approved the Rules of Procedure in
Impeachment Porceedings, superceding the previous House Impeachment
Rules approved by the 11thCongress. On 22 July 2002, the House of
Representatives adopted a Resolution, which directed the Committee
onJustice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of
disbursements and expenditures by theChief Justice of the Supreme Court of
the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). On 2 June 2003, former President
Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint (first impeachment
complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario G.Davide Jr. and seven Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution,
betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint was
endorsed by House Representatives, and was referred tothe House
Committee on Justice on 5 August 2003 in accordance with Section 3(2) of
Article XI of the Constitution.The House Committee on Justice ruled on 13
October 2003 that the first impeachment complaint was "sufficient inform,"
but voted to dismiss the same on 22 October 2003 for being insufficient in
substance. Four months and threeweeks since the filing of the first complaint
or on 23 October 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 HouseRepresentatives against Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated
by above-mentioned House Resolution. The second impeachment complaint
was accompanied by a"Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by
at least 1/3 of all the Members of the House of Representatives.Various
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed with the
Supreme Court against the House of Representatives, et. al., most of which
petitions contend that the filing of the second impeachment complaint
isunconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the
Constitution that "[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against
the same official more than once within a period of one year." Issue: Whether
the power of judicial review extends to those arising from impeachment
proceedings.Held: The Court's power of judicial review is conferred on the
judicial branch of the government in Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987
Constitution. The "moderating power" to "determine the proper allocation of
powers" of the different branches of government and "to direct the course of
government along constitutional channels" is inherent in all courtsas a
necessary consequence of the judicial power itself, which is "the power of the
court to settle actual controversiesinvolving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable." As indicated in Angara v. Electoral
Commission, judicial review is indeed an integral component of the delicate
system of checks and balances which, together with thecorollary principle of
separation of powers, forms the bedrock of our republican form of
government and insures that itsvast powers are utilized only for the benefit of
the people for which it serves. The separation of powers is afundamental
principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express
provision but by actual division inour Constitution. Each department of the
government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and
issupreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the
three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution
intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other.
TheConstitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances
to secure coordination in the workings of thevarious departments of the
government. And the judiciary in turn, with 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 declareexecutive and legislative acts void
if violative of the Constitution.The major difference between the judicial
power of the Philippine Supreme Court and that of the U.S. Supreme Court
isthat while the power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to the U.S.
Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature,that granted to the Philippine
Supreme Court and lower courts, as expressly provided for in the
Constitution, is not just a power but also a duty, and it was given an
expanded definition to include the power to correct any grave abuse of
discretion on the part of any government branch or instrumentality. There are
also glaring distinctions between the U.S.