CASE DIGEST

26 Francisco vs HOR
Constitutional Law 2

Prepared by Anna Hashim-Cabrera

Court Supreme Court

Citation GR 160261
Date November 10, 2003
Plaintiff-Appellee Ernesto B. Francisco, et.al
Accused-Appellants House of Representatives, et.al.
Ponente Justice Carpio Morales
Relevant topic Requirements for Constitutional Adjudication- Standing / Locus Standi
Relevant Consti or Art XI Sec 3 (5) and Art VIII, Sec1, of the Constitution
other law provisions

TLDR version Several petitions were filed with the Supreme Court by members of the bar,
members of the House of Representatives and private individuals, asserting their rights
If you were to as taxpayers to stop the illegal spending of public funds for the impeachment
summarize the case in, proceedings against the Chief Justice. Petitioners contended that the filing of second
max, 7-10 sentences impeachment complaint against CJ Davide was barred under Article XI Sec 3 (5) of
(complete with the the Constitution which states that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
most essential facts, against the same official more than once within a period of one (1) year.”
issues, ratio, and The first impeachment complaint- filed by Erap Estrada in June 2013 for betrayal
ruling) what is the case of public trust, violation of the Constitution and committing high crimes – and was
about? dismissed in October 2013 for insufficiency of substance.
The second impeachment complaint or on the very next day after the decision on
the dismissal of the first impeachment case came out, Congressmen Teodoro and
Fuentebella filed another impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice for
underpayment of COLA of the members of the judiciary from the JDF and the unlawful
disbursement of said fund The SC ruled that the second impeachment complaint
was indeed unconstitutional and said that the petitions were:
1. Justiciable or ripe for adjudication because there was an actual controversy involving
rights that are legally demandable
2. Not political questions that are beyond judicial review and therefore, within the
SC’s power to resolve with definitiveness on the issue of constitutionality.
SC also declared that it is duty-bound to take cognizance of the petitions to exercise the
power of judicial review as the guardian of the Constitution.

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:
● Hilarion Davide, Jr. – Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – subject of impeachment attempts
● Erap Estrada – Philippine President – filed first impeachment case which was dismissed.
● Gilbert Teodoro – Congressman of 1st District of Tarlac
Felix William Fuentebella - Congressman of 3rd District of Ilocos Sur
Both Fuentebella and Teodoro filed the second impeachment case
● Ernesto B. Francisco Jr – representing the officers and members of an NGO named “Nagmamalasakit na
mga Mananananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc.” raised the issue of Certiorari, Mandamus and
transcendental importance in filing his petition assailing the constitutionality of the second impeachment case.
He is one of the 18 groups of petitioners (whose petitions were consolidated into one). They invoked their
right as citizens to intervene alleging that “they will suffer if this insidious scheme of the minority of HOR is
successful.”

FACTS (in bullet format, chronological):

● Fact 1: Second impeachment proceeding goes against the one-year bar of filing more than one
impeachment complaint against the same official. This is the common argument cited by 18 groups of
petitioners who were either members of the Bar or taxpayers.
● Fact 2: The SC has the power of judicial review. There is the novel issue of WON power of judicial review
extends to those arising from impeachment proceedings and WON the pre requisites for the exercise of
judicial power of review have been fulfilled.
The SC cited Angara vs Elecom stating that the power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and
controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by parties and is limited to the very lis mota
Page 1 of 5
CASE DIGEST
26 Francisco vs HOR
Constitutional Law 2
of constitutionality. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and judicial review is the only way to
invalidate constitutionally infirm acts of the executive and legislative branches of government.
Even Article 7 of the Civil Code states that:
“.. When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void
and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not
contrary to the laws or the Constitution.”
● Fact 3: Petitioners and their arguments were enumerated. See issues and arguments raised below.

● Fact 4: Principles of statutory construction were applied: verbal legis, where there is ambiguity -ratio
legis et anima, and finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat – the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole

● Fact 5: SC cited differences between judicial review of the Philippines and the US where the power of
judicial review is only impliedly granted to the US Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature, but that in the
Philippines it is expressly provided for as not just a power but a duty and was given the expanded definition to
correct to correct any grave abuse of discretion by any branch of government or instrumentality. (post-Martial
Law consequence).
SC also cited the difference in US-Phil impeachment proceedings – US Consti bestows sole power of
impeachment to HOR without limitation while Phil Consti vested in the HOR the exclusive power to initiate
impeachment cases and provides for several limitations to the exercise of such power as embodied in Sec
3(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Art XI thereof. These limitations include the manner of filing required vote to impeach
and the subject one-year ban on the filing of impeachment complaints.

● Fact 6: Standing – Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a personal and substantial interest in the
case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of a governmental act that is
being challenged.
ISSUE RESPONSE
Intervenor Soriano and amicus Sol Gen and Dean Raul Pangalangan of UP College of Law
curiae former Justice Minister and opined that:
Sol Gen Estelito Mendoza Petitioners have standing since the Sc has, in the past, accorded
contend that petitioners do not standing to taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, legislators in
have standing since only the cases involving paramount public interest and transcendental
Chief Justice has sustained and importance.
Procedural matters are subordinate to the need to determine WON
will sustain direct personal injury.
the other branches of govt have kept themselves within the limits
of the Consti and the laws that they have not abused the discretion
given to them
When a real party in interest is unable to vindicate his rights by
seeking the same remedies , as in the case of CJ who for ethical
reasons cannot himself invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, the
Court will grant petitioners standing.
This portion also discussed the difference between real-party- in- interest (concept of civil procedure)and
the rule on standing (has constitutional underpinnings) and cited ruling of Kilosbayan Inc vs Morato

● Fact 7: Enumerated when specific requirements have been met have been given standing by the court
PARTY GIVEN STANDING WHEN
. As a citizen He has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a
result of its enforcement
As a taxpayer He is allowed to sue when there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed
or that public money is being directed o any improper purpose or that there is a
wastage of public funds through an enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional
law. (In the case at bar, Jaime N. Soriano's motion was denied because he failed to
meet the standing requirement for bringing taxpayer's suits)
As a legislator He is allowed to sue to question the validity of any social ction which he claims
infringes on his prerogatives as a legislator
An association Has legal personality to represent its members esp when composed with
taxpayers and outcome will affect their vital interest

Page 2 of 5
CASE DIGEST
26 Francisco vs HOR
Constitutional Law 2
IBP/member of Cannot merely cite the duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more because
legal profession it is too general. Must deal with advanced constitutional issues.
Intervenor Rule 19 Sec 2 of Rules of Court requires him to possess a legal interest in the
matter in litigation; or when applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements
of the law requiring intervention as in the case of intervenors Attorneys Romulo
Macalintal and Peter Quirino Quadra when they sought to join petitioners
Candelaria, et.al
Pimentel- also an intervenor for this case. Alleging that submitting to the SC’s
jurisdiction as the Senate President Senator will undermine the independence of
the Senate which will sit as an impeachment court once the Art of Impeachment
are transmitted to it from HOR. Hence, Sen Pimentel has legal interest being a
member of Congress against which the herein petitions are directed.
•
• Fact 8: TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE – The Phil Bar Association invoked sole ground of
transcendental importance. Determinants formulated by SC Justice Florentino Feliciano on doctrinal
definition of transcendental importance are: (1) the character of funds or assets involved in the case, (2) the
presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent
agency or instrumentality of the government and (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific
interest in the questions being raised.

Fact 9: Ripeness and Justiciability – SC found that the issue was ripe and justiciable
Leading to the conclusion that: all the requisite conditions for its exercise of its constitutionally vested power and
duty of judicial review over an issue whose resolution precisely called for the construction or interpretation of a
provision of the fundamental laws of the land were there.

ISSUES, ARGUMENTS FOR or AGAINST

ISSUE / QUESTION PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

WON the filing of the second impeachment

complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. YES. Fuentebella and Teodoro’s second impeachment
Davide Jr with the HOR falls within the one- complaint definitely falls within the one-year bar stated in
year bar provided in the Sec 3(5) Article XI of the Constitution and therefore, void.
the Constitution?

WON Sec 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of YES. Since it is unconstitutional, the SC may exercise
Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings judicial review
approved by the HOR are unconstitutional?

WON the certiorari jurisdiction of the court YES. The judiciary, with the SC as its final arbiter,
may be invoked effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of
On what issues and at what time and whether its power to determine the law and hence to declare the
it should be exercised by the SC at this time executive and legislative acts void if it goes against the
Based on Constitution.
a) Locus standi of petitioners
b) Ripeness (prematurity; mootness)
c) Political question or justiciability
d) House’s exclusive power to initiate all
cases of impeachment
e) Senate’s “sole” power to try and
decide all cases of impeachment
f) Constitutionality of the House Rules
on Impeachment vis-à-vis Sec 3 (5)
of Art XI of the Constitution
g) Judicial Restraint

Page 3 of 5
CASE DIGEST
26 Francisco vs HOR
Constitutional Law 2
SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE 18 PETITIONS & WHY SC RULED ON CONSOLIDATED PETITION
LIS MOTA It is a well-settled maxim of adjudication that an issue assailing the
constitutionality of a governmental act should be avoided as much as
SUMMARY: Courts will not touch the issue possible. The SC quoted its own decision on two cases:
of constitutionality unless it is truly In Sotto v Commissions – SC will tackle constitutionality only if such
unavoidable and is the very lis mota or crux question will be unavoidable
of the controversy. In Luz Farms v Secretary of Agrarian Reform – SC will tackle
constitutionality issues only if it is shown that the essential requisites of
a judicial inquiry into such a question is first satisfied; must be an
actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights
susceptible of judicial determination and the constitutional question
must have been opportunely raised by the proper party and the
resolution of the question.. unavoidably necessary to the decision of
the case itself.
ISSUE COMMON TO ALL PETITIONS Hence, this case is one where constitutionality is the very lis mota of the
All consolidated petitions, while seeking controversy.
the invalidity of the second impeachment
complaint collectively raise several
constitutional issues upon which the
outcome of this controversy could possibly
be made to rest.

SALIENT POINTS OF TWO PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS NOT FOUND IN THE OTHER PETITIONS (see below)

ISSUE /ARGUMENT RAISED SC RESPONSE

GR. No. 160262 - SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA, CARLOS P.
MEDINA, JR. AND HENEDINA RAZON-ABAD, petitioners, While this argument does indeed limit the scope of the
ATTYS. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL ANDRAZON-ABAD PETE constitutional issues to the provisions of impeachment
QUIRINO QUADRA, petitioners-in-intervention, WORLD WAR II ,more compelling considerations .. for the adoption of it
VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
as the lis mota or crux of the present controversy. The
petitioner-in-intervention
primary reason is the fact that only Attys Macalintal and
Quadra have raised this issue as a ground for
Introduced new argument that since the second invalidating the 2nd impeachment complaint. Thus,
impeachment complaint was verified and filed only by adopting this additional ground as basis will render for
Representatives Gilberto Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William naught the efforts presented by the other petitioners as
Fuentebella, the same does not fall under the provision of well.
Sce 3(4), Article XI of the Constitution saying that complaint The decision to discard the issue as unnecessary is
should be filed by 1/3 of the Members of the House.
made easier by the fact that said intervenors Macalintal
and Quadra have joined in the petition of Candelaria,
They assert that while at least 81 members of HOR
et.al. adopting the Hence, they are not unduly
signed a Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment, the
prejudiced by this Court’s decision
same did not satisfy the requisites for the application .. in
that.. “the verified Complaint..” was not FILED “by at least
one-third of all the Members of the HOR”.
-that the signatories to such Resolution are alleged to
have verified the same as merely a Resolution of
Endorsement. Intervenors point to the Verification of the
Resolution of Endorsement which states that :
“We are the proponents /sponsors of the Resolution of the
Endorsement of the abovementioned Complaint of
Representatives Gilbert Teodoro and Felix William
Fuentebella..”
- Second impeachment complaint should have been
calendared and referred to the House Committee on
Justice under Sec 3(2) , Article XI of the Constitution
(but it was not)
This was echoed by Justice Maambong who opined that
for Sec 3 (2) to apply, there should be 76 or more
representatives who SIGNED AND VERIFIED the

Page 4 of 5
CASE DIGEST
26 Francisco vs HOR
Constitutional Law 2
impeachment complaint as complainants and .. not as
endorsers.

G.R. No. 160310- LEONILO R. ALFONSO,etal
,petitioners, WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES
OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner-in-intervention
Argued that, among other reasons, the second
impeachment complaint is invalid since it directly resulted
from a Resolution calling for a legislative inquiry into the
JDF which is unconstitutional for being: (a) a violation of
the rules and jurisprudence on investigations 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 and (d) an
assault on the independence of the judiciary
“..the issue of the constitutionality of said Resolution and
resulting legislative inquiry is too far removed from the
issue of the validity of the 2nd impeachment complaint..
..a standard for the conduct of legislative inquiries has
already been enunciated by SC in Bengzon Jr vs Senate
Blue Ribbon Committee .. the investigation must be “in
aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published
rules of procedure” and that the “rights if persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected”

OTHER RELEVANT DISCUSSIONS

Old Rules of Procedure on Impeachment New Rules of Procedure on Impeachment

Initiate “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once within
a period of one year.”
Initiated - filing of the impeachment complaint
coupled with Congress’ taking initial action of
said complaint.
Impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated
1. If House Committee on Justice verify the
complaint as sufficient in substance, or
2. If the House itself affirms of overturns
HCJ claim to substance, or
3. By filing or endorsement before the
House Sec Gen by ⅓ of the
members of the House.

Bar No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once within
the period of one (1) year.
Within a period of one (1) year from the date
impeachment proceedings are deemed
initiated as provided in Section 16 hereof, no
impeachment proceedings, as such, can be
initiated against the same official.

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 Offi ce 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.

Page 5 of 5