Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga 4.
4. Many petitions for various kinds of actions were filed against the House of
Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc.
November 10, 2003 | Carpio-Morales, J. | General Policies on Construction
PETITIONER: Ernesto b. Francisco, Jr.
RESPONDENTS: Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga
Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc.
SUMMARY: Former president Estrada filed the first impeachment of Justice
Hilario Davide and seven other associate justices for betrayal of public trust and
other high crimes. It was denied because it was deemed insufficient hence a
second impeachment was filed and signed by 1/3 of the members of the house of
represntatives. Various actions were filed against the House of representatives
most of which were contending the constitutiuonality of the second
impeachment as it violates the provision of Sec. 5 of Art 11 of the constitution
stating that “ No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one year.”
DOCTRINE: General Policies on Construction
FACTS:
1. The 12th Congress of the House of Representatives adopted and approved
the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings, superseding the
previous House Impeachment Rules approved by the 11th Congress. House
of Representatives adopted a Resolution, which directed the Committee on
Justice “to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of
disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of the Judiciary Development Fund
2. Former President Joseph Estrada filed the first impeachment case against CJ
Davide and to seven other associate justices on the ground of betrayal of
public trust and other high crimes. Lter on the case was endores to the
House of representatives which was referred to the committee on Justice
which was sait to be sufficient in form. After that it was again dismissed
due to its lack of substance.
3. The second impeachment complaint was filed with the Secretary General
of the House by House Representatives 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.
Representatives contending that the filing of the second impeachment is
unconstitutional because it violates the provision of Section 5 of Art. 11 of
the constitution that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against
the same official more than once within a period of one year.”
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether or not Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment
adopted by the 12th Congress are unconstitutional for violating the provisions of
Section 3, Article 11 of the Constitution. - YES
2. Whether the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of
Article 11 of the Constitution. - YES
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.
RATIO:
1. Section 3 of Article XI provides that “The Congress shall promulgate its rules
on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.” Clearly, its
power to promulgate its rules on impeachment is limited by the phrase “to
effectively carry out the purpose of this section.” Hence, these rules cannot
contravene the very purpose of the Constitution which said rules were intended
to effectively carry out. Moreover, Section 3 of Article XI clearly provides for
other specific limitations on its power to make rules. It is basic that all rules
must not contravene the Constitution which is the fundamental law. If as alleged
Congress had absolute rule making power, then it would by necessary
implication have the power to alter or amend the meaning of the Constitution
without need of referendum.
2. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the
initial action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI
becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the
foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same official within
a one year period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
Considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed by former
President Estrada against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along with
seven associate justices of this Court, on June 2, 2003 and referred to the
House Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003, the second impeachment
complaint filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix
William Fuentebella against the Chief Justice on October 23, 2003 violates
the constitutional prohibition against the initiation of impeachment
proceedings against the same impeachable officer within a one-year period.