>FACTS: Within a period of 1 year, 2 impeachment proceedings

were filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The
justiciable controversy in this case was the constitutionality of the
subsequent filing of a second complaint to controvert the rules of
impeachment provided for by law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the second impeachment
complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the
House of Representatives is constitutional, and whether the
resolution thereof is a political question h; as resulted in a
political crisis.
HELD: Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in
Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of
Representativesare unconstitutional. Consequently, the second
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, is
barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the
Constitution.
REASONING:In passing over the complex issues arising from the
controversy, this Court is ever mindful of the essential truth that the
inviolate doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative,
executive or judicial branches of government by no means
prescribes for absolute autonomy in the discharge by each of that
part of the governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign
people.
At the same time, the corollary doctrine of checks and balances
which has been carefully calibrated by the Constitution to temper
the official acts of each of these three branches must be given effect
without destroying their indispensable co-equality. There exists no
constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial
review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of
checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as
a whole and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another.
Both are integral components of the calibrated system of
independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of
government act beyond the powers assigned to it bythe
Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its
ordinary meaning. Thus when a proposal reached the floor
proposing that A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the
House shall be necessary to initiate impeachment proceedings,
this was met by a proposal to delete the line on the ground that the
vote of the House does not initiate impeachment proceeding but
rather the filing of a complaint does.
Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing
and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the
House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of
the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary
General of the House, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI
becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated,
another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same
official within a one year period.
The Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and
resolved on the merits only the main issue of whether the
impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice
transgressed the constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule.
Beyond this, it did not go about assuming jurisdiction where it had
none, nor indiscriminately turnjusticiable issues out of decidedly
political questions. Because it is not at all the business of this Court
to assert judicial dominance over the other two great branches of
the government.