Case Digest: ERNESTO FRANCISCO, JR., et al. v . HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al.

ERNESTO FRANCISCO, JR., et al. v . HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al. 

The power of judicial review extends to the rule making power of the Congress where said rule contravenes the mandate of the Constitution. Pursuant to the mandate of Section 3 (8) of Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, the 12th Congress of the House of Representatives adopted and approved the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings (House Rules). Section 16 Rule V of the House Rule provides that ―impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated at the time of the filing of such verified complaint or resolution of impeachment with the Secretary General‖ while Section 17 Rule V states, ―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.
A House Resolution was subsequently issued directing the Committee on Justice to conduct an investigation on the manner of disbursements and expenditures of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) by the Chief Justice. Then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada filed an impeachment complaint (first complaint), endorsed by some of the members of the House of Representatives against then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. (Davide, Jr.) and seven other associate justices, in accordance with Section 3 (2) Article IX. The first complaint was dismissed for being insufficient in substance, hence, the Committee Report was never sent to the House in plenary.
A second impeachment complaint (second complaint) signed by at least one third (1/3) of the members of the House of Representatives was filed with the Secretary General of the House of Representatives by Gilbert Teodoro et al., founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry. Hence, the filing of this petition.
Petitioners Ernesto Francisco, Jr., et al. (Francisco) prays that the House of Representatives be prevented from transmitting the Articles of Impeachment of the second complaint to the Senate, that the House Rules be declared null and void for being unconstitutional. Likewise, it prayed that the House Resolution infringes the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and the constitutional principle of fiscal autonomy of the judiciary. On the other hand, Respondent-members of the House of Representatives claims that the second complaint will prosper since the term, ―initiate is different from ―filing under Section 16 Rule V of the House Rule, hence, the first complaint was not really ―filed.
Respondent-intervenors Senator Franklin Drilon (Drilon) and Atty. Jaime Soriano, et. al. filed filed a Manifestation and Petitions for Intervention, respectively, asserting that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear, prohibit or enjoin the House of Representatives, a co-equal and independent branch from performing its mandate of intiating impeachment cases and that there is no justiciable issue and the matter in question is not yet ripe for judicial determination. The Manifestations and Petitions for Intervention were admitted by the Court.

ISSUES:

1.) Whether or not the power of judicial review extends to those arising from impeachment proceedings
2.) Whether or not the Rules of Procedure for Impeachment Proceedings adopted by the 12th Congress is constitutional
3.) Whether or not the second impeachment complaint may be validly filed

HELD:

This Court’s power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the government in Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987 Constitution: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts 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 of any branch or instrumentality of the government. 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. Respondent-members of the Congress‘ and intervenors Atty. Romulo Macalintal, et al.‘s reliance upon American jurisprudence, the American Constitution and American authorities cannot be credited to support the proposition that the Senate’s “sole power to try and decide impeachment cases,” as provided for under Art. XI, Sec. 3(6) of the Constitution, is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of all issues pertaining to impeachment to the legislature, to the total exclusion of the power of judicial review to check and restrain any grave abuse of the impeachment process. Nor can it reasonably support the interpretation that it necessarily confers upon the Senate the inherently judicial power to determine constitutional questions incident to impeachment proceedings.
Said American jurisprudence and authorities, much less the American Constitution, are of dubious application for these are no longer controlling within our jurisdiction and have only limited persuasive merit insofar as Philippine constitutional law is concerned. While the power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to the U.S. Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature, that granted to the Philippine Supreme Court and lower courts, as expressly provided for in the Constitution, is not just a power but also a duty, and it was given an expanded definition to include the power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on the part of any government branch or instrumentality.
The Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings adopted by the 12th Congress is Unconstitutional.
Respondent House of Representatives, through Speaker De Venecia, argues that Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules do not violate Section 3 (5) of Article XI of our present Constitution, contending that the term “initiate” does not mean “to file;” that Section 3 (1) is clear in that it is the House of Representatives, as a collective body, which has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment; that initiate could not possibly mean “to file. 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.
Following the principle of reddendo singuala sinuilis, the term “cases” must be distinguished from the term “proceedings.” An impeachment case is the legal controversy that must be decided by the Senate. Above-quoted first provision provides that the House, by a vote of one-third of all its members, can bring a case to the Senate. It is in that sense that the House has “exclusive power” to initiate all cases of impeachment. No other body can do it. On the other hand, proceeding takes place not in the Senate but in the House and consists of several steps: (1) there is the filing of a verified complaint either by a Member of the House of Representatives or by a private citizen endorsed by a Member of the House of the Representatives; (2) there is the processing of this complaint by the proper Committee which may either reject the complaint or uphold it; (3) whether the resolution of the Committee rejects or upholds the complaint, the resolution must be forwarded to the House for further processing; and (4) there is the processing of the same complaint by the House of Representatives which either affirms a favorable resolution of the Committee or overrides a contrary resolution by a vote of one-third of all the members. If at least one third of all the Members upholds the complaint, Articles of Impeachment are prepared and transmitted to the Senate. It is at this point that the House “initiates an impeachment case.” Thus, the proceeding is initiated or begins, when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. To the argument that only the House of Representatives as a body can initiate impeachment proceedings because Section 3 (1) says “The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment,” This is a misreading of said provision and is contrary to the principle of reddendo singula singulis by equating “impeachment cases” with “impeachment proceeding.” Father Bernas concludes that when Section 3 (5) says, “No impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year,” it means that no second verified complaint may be accepted and referred to the Committee on Justice for action.
Respondent House of Representatives counters that under Section 3 (8) of Article XI, it is clear and unequivocal that it and only it has the power to make and interpret its rules governing impeachment. Its argument is premised on the assumption that Congress has absolute power to promulgate its rules. This assumption, however, is misplaced. 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. 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.
Under Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules, impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if there is a finding by the House Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is sufficient in substance, or (2) once the House itself affirms or overturns the finding of the Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is not sufficient in substance or (3) by the filing or endorsement before the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives of a verified complaint or a resolution of impeachment by at least 1/3 of the members of the House. These rules clearly contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI since the rules give the term “initiate” a meaning different meaning from filing and referral.
The provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules which state that impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if there is a finding by the House Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is sufficient in substance, or (2) once the House itself affirms or overturns the finding of the Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is not sufficient in substance or (3) by the filing or endorsement before the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives of a verified complaint or a resolution of impeachment by at least 1/3 of the members of the House thus clearly contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI as they give the term “initiate” a meaning different from “filing.” Therefore, 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.
The Second Impeachment Complaint is barred by Par .5 Section 3 Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. 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.
In fine, 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.