1.1 Francisco Vs HOR Case Digest

[G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003.] ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. et al. petitioner vs.
HOR, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, THE SENATE, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON, et al. respondents FACTS: Pres. Estrada filed with the Sec-Gen of the HOR, a verified impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and seven (7) other Associate Justices of the Court for violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust and, committing high crimes. The House Committee on Justice dismissed said complaint for insufficiency of substance. The next day, Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella, the same complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., alleging underpayment of the COLA of the members and personnel of the judiciary from the JDF and unlawful disbursement of said fund for various infrastructure projects and acquisition of service vehicles and other equipment. Attached to the second impeachment complaint was a Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment signed by at least onethird (1/3) of all the members of the House of Representatives. The complaint was set to be transmitted to the Senate for appropriate action. Subsequently, several petitions were filed to stop the illegal spending of public funds for the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice. Petitioners contended that the filing of second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice was barred under Article XI, Sec. 3 (5) of the 1987 Constitution which states that "no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year." Respondent HOR through Speaker Jose C. De Venecia, Jr. submitted a Manifestation asserting that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear, much less prohibit or enjoin the House of Representatives, which is an independent and co-equal branch of government under the Constitution, from the performance of its constitutionally mandated duty to initiate impeachment cases. ISSUE: Whether or not the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide is valid under Article XI, Sec. 3 (5) of the 1987 Constitution. HELD: No. Petitioners, as taxpayers, had sufficient standing to file the petitions to prevent disbursement of public funds amounting to millions of pesos for an illegal act. The petitions were justiciable or ripe for adjudication because there was an actual controversy involving rights that are legally demandable. Whether the issues present a political question, the Supreme Court held that only questions that are truly political questions are beyond judicial review. The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to resolve with definitiveness the issues of constitutionality. It is duty bound to take cognizance of the petitions to exercise the power of judicial review as the guardian of the Constitution. 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. The Court found the existence in full of 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 law of the land. What lies in here is an issue of a genuine constitutional material which only this Court can properly and competently address and adjudicate in accordance with the clear-cut allocation of powers under our system of
government. Face-to-face thus with a matter or problem that squarely falls under the Court's jurisdiction, no other course of action can be had but for it to pass upon that problem head on. No one is above the law or the Constitution. This is a basic precept in any legal system which recognizes equality of all men before the law as essential to the law's moral authority and that of its agents to secure respect for and obedience to its commands. Perhaps, there is no other government branch or instrumentality that is most zealous in protecting that principle of legal equality other than the Supreme Court which has discerned its real meaning and ramifications through its application to numerous cases especially of the high-profile kind in the annals of jurisprudence. The Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court. But just because he is the Chief Justice does not imply that he gets to have less in law than anybody else. The law is solicitous of every individual's rights irrespective of his station in life. The Filipino nation and its democratic institutions have no doubt been put to test once again by this impeachment case against Chief Justice Hilario Davide. Accordingly, this Court has resorted to no other than the Constitution in search for a solution to what many feared would ripen to a crisis in government. But though it is indeed immensely a blessing for this Court to have found answers in our bedrock of legal principles, it is equally important that it went through this crucible of a democratic process, if only to discover that it can resolve differences without the use of force and aggression upon each other. The second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. is BARRED. under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

1.1 Francisco Vs HOR Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.1 Francisco Vs HOR Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.1 Francisco Vs HOR Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003.] ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. et al. petitioner vs.

You might also like