Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.

160261, November 10, 2003

Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

FACTS

• 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 complaint was endorsed by Representatives and endorsed to the House Committee on Justice.
• The House Committee on Justice ruled that the first impeachment complaint was "sufficient in form," but voted to dismiss the same
on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance.
• A day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it and four months and three weeks since the first complaint, a second
impeachment complaint was filed with the against Chief Justice Davide, founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry. 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.
• Following this, petitions were filed contending that the filing of the 2nd impeachment complaint is unconstitutional under Section 5 of
Article XI of the Constitution that "[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a
period of one year."

Petitioner prays for the court to exercise the power of judicial review to determine the validity of the second impeachment complaint.

Respondent arguments:

1. House speakers contends that the Constitution has provided that Constitution has excluded impeachment from the power of judicial
review; impeachment is a political action which cannot assume judicial character. They relied on American Jurisprudence where in
Nixon v. United States, it was pointed out that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings is inappropriate since it
runs counter to the framer’s decision to allocate different fora the powers to try impeachment and to try crimes which disturbs the
system of checks and balances.
2. Senator Pimentel argued that Senate’s sole power to try impeachment cases excludes the application of judicial review over it
3. They also argued that judicial review of impeachments undermines their finality and may also lead to conflict between the congress
and the judiciary
4. Respondent House of Representatives argues that Section 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules do not violate Section
3 (5) of Article 9 of the Constitution because the term “initiate” does not mean “to file” because filing can, as Section (2), Article 9 of
the Constitution provides, be accomplished in 3 ways, to wit:
a. By a verified complaint for impeachment by any member of the HoR
b. By any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any member
c. At least 1/3 member of the house

Hence, the impeachment could not have been initiated as the HoR as acting as the Collective Body has yet to act on it.

ISSUE

1. Whether section 15 and 16 of Rule 5 of the House Impeachment Rules adopted by the 12th congress are unconstitutional for
violating the provisions of Section 3, Article 9 of the Constitution
2. Whether the 2nd impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3 (5) of Article 9 of the Constitution

RULING

1. Section 15 and 16 of Rule 5 is unconstitutional. Process contravenes the definition of “initiate” under the Constitution
2. Second Impeachment complaint is therefore barred

To determine the merits of the issues raised, the court turned to constitutional construction of the word “initiate.”

1. Verba legis – the words of the constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. The
constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document, hence the people should understand it in the sense they have in common use.
2. Ratio legis – where there is ambiguity, ration legis est anima, meaning the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the
intent of its framers. “A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times, and the condition and
circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. The object is to ascertain the reason which induced the framers of the
Constitution to enact the particular provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the whole as
to make the wors consonant to that reason and calculated to effect that purpose.”
 3. Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat – the constitution is to be interpreted as a whole. Provisions should function to the full extent of
its substance and its terms, not by itself alone, but in conjunction with all other provisions. No one provision of the Constitution is to
be separated from all the others, to be considered alone, but all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought
into view and so interpreted as to effectuate the purpose of the document.
4. If the plain meaning is not found to be clear, resort to other aids available such as debates and proceedings, but only when other
guides fail.

As applied on the word initiate:

1. “Initiate” is known by ordinary men to mean as “to begin,” “to commence.” It was also clear during oral arguments that the beginning
or initiation is the filing of the complaint and its referral to the committee on justice
2. As to the intent, based on records, the framers of the constitution intended for initiation to start with the filing of the complaint.
Initiation starts on the floor, it is not the body which initiates it. It only approves or disapproves the resolution.
3. Father Bernas also clarified during oral arguments that the word “initiate” appeared on Section 3 (1) and (5) under different objects,
“impeachment case” and “impeachment proceeding.” Under the principle of reddendo singuala sinuilis, “cases” must be
differentiated from “proceedings.” An impeachment case is a legal controversy that must be decided by the senate. However, before a
decision is made by the senate, “a proceeding” must be followed. A proceeding must first be “initiated.” To initiate means to begin,
initium in latin. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. The beginning is the verified complaint, then the processing of the complaint,
then the resolution whether the committee approves or reject and the processing of whether there is favorable resolution. It is at this
point that the House initiates an impeachment case. This is not the beginning of the proceeding. The proceeding is initiated when a
verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action.
4. Father Bernas concluded that no impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period
of one year means that no second verified complaint may be accepted and referred to the committee on justice for action. By his
explanation, this interpretation is founded on the common understanding of the meaning of “to initiate” which means to begin. He
reminded that the constitution is ratified by the people, both ordinary and sophisticated as they understand it and that ordinary
people ready ordinary meaning into ordinary words and not abstruse meaning, they ratify words as they understand it and not as
sophisticated lawyers confuse it.

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.

Hence it is clear, once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same
official within a one-year period.

Section 3 (8) of Article XI provides that "The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this
section." 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.

It is basic that all rules must not contravene the Constitution which is the fundamental law. 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.

STATUTE IN QUESTION

ARTICLE XI, SECTION 3

(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.

RULE V (12TH CONGRESS NEW RULES)

BAR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT

Section 16. – Impeachment Proceedings Deemed Initiated. – In cases where a Member of the House files a verified complaint of
impeachment or a citizen files a verified complaint that is endorsed by a Member of the House through a resolution of endorsement
against an impeachable officer, impeachment proceedings against such official are deemed initiated on the day the Committee on
Justice finds that the verified complaint and/or resolution against such official, as the case may be, is sufficient in substance, or on the
date the House votes to overturn or affirm the finding of the said Committee that the verified complaint and/or resolution, as the case
may be, is not sufficient in substance.
Section 17. Bar Against Initiation Of Impeachment Proceedings. – 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. (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)