You are on page 1of 2

Elver P.

Lim

Subject: Constitutional Law


Title: Francisco v. House of Representatives
Citation: GR No. 160261, November 10, 2003
Topic: Political Question

Fact:

On June 2, 2003, a verified impeachment complaint was filed with the Office of the
Secretary General of the House of Representatives by former President Joseph E.
Estrada against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and seven (7) other associate
justices of the Court for violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and
committing high crimes. However, on October 22, 2003, the said House Committee
dismissed the first impeachment complaint for insufficiency of substance.

The following day, or on October 23, 2003, a verified impeachment complaint was
filed with the Office of the Secretary General of the House by the complainants,
Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, First District, Tarlac, and Felix William D.
Fuentebella, Third District, Camarines Sur, against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.,
for graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the
Constitution and failure to maintain good behavior while in office.

On October 27, 2003, Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. filed his petition for certiorari and
prohibition or the nullification of the October 23, 2003 Impeachment Complaint
with a plea for injunctive relief.

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
petitions and of the issues.
2. Whether Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Rules of Procedure in
Impeachment Cases are unconstitutional?
3. Whether or not the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section
3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution.

Rulings:

1. Yes. Under Section 4(2), Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is
vested with jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality,
application and operation of government rules and regulations, including the
constitutionality, application and operation of rules of the House of
Representatives, as well as the Senate. It is competent and proper for the
Court to consider whether the proceedings in Congress are in conformity
with the Constitution and the law because living under the Constitution, no
branch or department of the government is supreme; and it is the duty of the
judiciary to determine cases regularly brought before them, whether the
powers of any branch of the government and even those of the legislative
enactment of laws and rules have been exercised in conformity with the
Constitution; and if they have not, to treat their acts as null and void. Under
Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, the Court has exclusive jurisdiction
over petitions for certiorari and prohibition. The House of Representatives
may have the sole power to initiate impeachment cases, and the Senate the
sole power to try and decide the said cases, but the exercise of such powers
must be in conformity with and not in derogation of the Constitution.
Elver P. Lim

2. Yes. Since Rule V of the 2001 Rules of Procedure is contrary to the


Constitution, the said rule is void.

3. Yes. The complaint for impeachment against seven (7) Justices of this Court
filed by former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada with the office of the
Secretary General of the House of Representatives was initiated within the
context of Section 3(5), Article XI of the Constitution. The complaint was filed
on June 2, 2003 and referred to the House Committee on Justice and Human
Rights shortly thereafter. However, Congressmen Gilberto Teodoro and Felix
William Fuentebella initiated impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., with the Resolution of Endorsement of the Complaint
for Impeachment by more than one-third of the members of the House of
Representatives on October 23, 2003 well within ne year from the initiation
of the June 2, 2003 of former President Joseph E. Estrada. Irrefragably then,
the October 23, 2003 complaint for impeachment filed by Congessmen
Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William D. Fuentebella is a second
complaint for impeachment, which, under Section 3(5), Article XI of the
Constitution, is proscribed.

You might also like