Francisco, Jr. V. Nagmamalasakit na mga Mananananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc.

Facts: -On June 2, 2003, former President Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide, Jr. and seven Associate Chief Justices of the Supreme Court for culpable violation if the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and other high crimes. Such complaint was grounded on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund. -The House Committee on Justice ruled that the first complaint was sufficient in form but insufficient in substance. Committee Report was not sent to the House in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. -A second impeachment complaint was filed four months and three weeks since the filing of the first complaint, by Teodoro, Jr. and Fuentebella. Such complaint was grounded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution. -Instant petitions arose against the HOR, most of which contend that the filing of the second impeachment is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section of Article XI of the Constitution. Issues: 1) WON the offenses alleged in the Second Impeachment complaint constitute valid impeachable offense under the Constitution 2) WON the second impeachment complaint was filed in accordance with Section 3(4), Article XI of the Constitution. 3) WON the legislative inquiry by the House Committee on Justice into the Judicial Development Fund is an unconsitutional infringement of the constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary. 4) WON Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Impeachment adopted by the 12th Congress are unconstitutional for violating privisions of Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution. 5) WON the second complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution. Discussion Issue 1: The discussion of the issue of impeachable offense would require the SC to make a determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Such determination of a purely political question which the Constitution has left to the discretion of the legislation. While Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution gives six grounds for impeachment, two of these, namely, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust, still need a clear cut definition. The issue is a non-justiciable political question beyond the scope of judicial power.

BINKY

Issue 2: The second impeachment complaint was not filed in accordance with Section 3(4), Article XI of the Consitution.
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

The verified complaint or resolution of impeachment was not filed by at least ine-tihrd of all the Members of the House. In order for the second impeachment to become the Articles of Impeachment and for trial in the Senate to bein, the verified complaint must be filed, not merely endorsed, by at least one-third of the members of HOR. There should be 76 or more representatives who signed and verified the second impeachment complaint as complainants, signed and verified the signatories to a resolution of impeachment. The Resolution of Endorsement/ Impeachment signed by at least onethird of the members of HOR as endorsers is not the resolution of impeachment contemplated by the Constitution, such resolution of endorsement being necessary only from at least one member or any citizied with a verified impeachment complaint.
Issue 3: This issue is far from the validity of the second impeachment complaint. The resolution of the said issue would require the SC to form a rule of constitutional law touching on, the separate matter of legislative inquiries in egenral, which would thus be broader than is required by the facts of the consolidated cases. However, one argument is wort mentioning. Alfonso, et al. argues that the second impeachment complaint is invalid since it resulted from a Resolution calling for a legislative inquiry into the JDF. This is unconstitutional for being: a) a violation of the rules and jurisprudence on investigation in aid of legislation, b) an open breach of the doctrine of separation of powers, c) a violation of the constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary. D) an assault on the independence of the judiciary.

BINKY

Issue 4: Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Impeachment adopted by the 12th Congress are unconstitutional for violating privisions of Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution.

Respondent HOR It does not violate. Section 16 and 17 of Rule 5 of the House Impeachment Rules do not violate Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution. The HOR has the exlusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. The term initiate does not mean to file; Filing can be accomplished in 3 ways 1)Verified complaint for impeachment by any member of the HOR; or (2) by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any member; or (3) by at least 1/3 of all the members of the House. The impeachment complaint had not been initiated by the HOR. To the HOR, filing and initiating are two different things.

SC and amicus curiae The HOR has already initiated the impeachment proceeding. The beginning or the initiation is the filing of the complaint and its referral to the Committee in Justice. Furthermore, the impeachment is deemed initiated when the Justice Committee votes in favor of impeachment or when the House reverses a contrary vote of the Committee. Therefore, the inititation happened earlier. Initiation of impeachment proceeding starts with the filing of the complaint. Impeachment case legal proceeding that must be decided by the Senate Impachment proceeding process that must be done before an impeachment case can be passed to the Senate

Issue 5: The second complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

The initiation takes place by the act of filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House of Committee on Justice. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment may not be filed against the same official within a one year period, following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
Ruling Section 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment complaint is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

BINKY

JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS y Position of respondents/ HOR: The impeachment is a political action which cannot assume a judicial character. Any question, issue or incident arising at any stage of the impeachment proceeding is beyond the reach of judicial review. The Senates sole power to try impeachment cases: (1) exluceds the application of judicial review over it; (2) includes the Senates power to determine constitutional questions relative to impeachment proceedings. Judicial review over impeachment proceedings runs counter to the framers decision to allocate to different for a the powers to try impeachments and to try crimes. It disturbs the system of checks and balances, under which impeachment is the only legislative check on the judiciary. Political question a question of policy; questions that are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of Justiciable question a question that is appropriate to be tried and settled in a court of law. Judicial power includes the duty of courst of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part or instrumentality of the government. This remains the overlying principle by which the courts determine whether or not an issue is justiciable, and has led to the establishment of the justiciability doctrines. These doctrines are used to determine whether a case or controversy actually exists, and if one does then the issues are considered justiciable. Political questions can either be 1)truly political question, or 2) not truly political question Truly political questions are beyond judicial review Not truly political questions can be reviewed under Section1 , Article VIII of the Constitution However, it must be noted that even if we were to assume that the issue presented to us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from resolving I tunder the expanded jursidiction conferred upon us that now covers even the political question. Test of justicia bility: Are there constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon a certain political body? If yes, judicial review is warranted. If none, non-justiciable political question.

y y

BINKY

Test of justiciability (American concept) o Is there a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department? o Is there a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it? o Is it impossible to decide without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-juridical discretion?

BINKY