CASE DIGEST: FRANCISCO ET AL V HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Published by arce on August 5, 2013 | Leave a response

FRANCISCO ET AL v HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FACTS

On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix
William D. Fuentebella, 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 (JDF).” On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an
impeachment complaint (first impeachment complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and
seven Associate Justices of this Court for “culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public
trust and other high crimes.” The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first
impeachment complaint was “sufficient in form,”9 but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003
for being insufficient in substance.10 To date, the Committee Report to this effect has not yet been sent
to the House in plenary in accordance with the said Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. Four
months and three weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the first complaint or on October 23, 2003, a
day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment complaint11
was filed with the Secretary General of the House12 by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. (First
District, Tarlac) and Felix William B. Fuentebella (Third District, Camarines Sur) against Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-
mentioned House Resolution. This second impeachment complaint was accompanied by a “Resolution
of Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of
Representatives.13 Since the first impeachment complaint never made it to the floor for resolution,
respondent House of Representatives concludes that the one year bar prohibiting the initiation of
impeachment proceedings against the same officials could not have been violated as the impeachment
complaint against Chief Justice Davide and seven Associate Justices had not been initiated as the House
of Representatives, acting as the collective body, has yet to act on it. Opposing petitioners on the other
hand interpreted the word “initiate” to mean the filing of the complaint. Since there was already a first
complaint that never got through the Committee, no impeachment complaint maybe filed until the
lapse of the 1 year period.

ISSUE/S

1. When is an impeachment proceeding initiated? 2. Is the second impeachment complaint valid?

HELD

1. Art. XI, Sec. 3, pars. (1), (5) & (6) of the Constitution states:

(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a
period of one year.

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for
that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on
trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

“Initiate” of course is understood by ordinary men to mean, as dictionaries do, to begin, to commence,
or set going. As Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language concisely puts it, it
means “to perform or facilitate the first action,” The Court pried the Constitutional Convention Records
to ascertain the intent of the framers of the Constitution. The framers really intended “initiate” to mean
the filing of the verified complaint to the Committee on Justice of the Lower House. This is also based on
the procedure of the U.S. Congress where an impeachment is initiated upon filing of the impeachment
complaint.

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