Scribd
Upload
114 views

Francisco vs. House of Representatives

The House of Representatives tasked its Committee on Justice to investigate the Chief Justice's expenditures from the Judiciary Development Fund. A first impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice and other justices was filed but did not prosper. Four months later, a second impeachment complaint was filed. The issue is whether the Constitution allows a second impeachment complaint within one year. The Supreme Court held no, ruling that under the Constitution, a second impeachment complaint against the same official within a one-year period is impermissible, regardless of the number of votes, as it would violate the one-year bar on initiating impeachment complaints mentioned in the Constitution.

Uploaded by

theresa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
114 views

Francisco vs. House of Representatives

The House of Representatives tasked its Committee on Justice to investigate the Chief Justice's expenditures from the Judiciary Development Fund. A first impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice and other justices was filed but did not prosper. Four months later, a second impeachment complaint was filed. The issue is whether the Constitution allows a second impeachment complaint within one year. The Supreme Court held no, ruling that under the Constitution, a second impeachment complaint against the same official within a one-year period is impermissible, regardless of the number of votes, as it would violate the one-year bar on initiating impeachment complaints mentioned in the Constitution.

Uploaded by

theresa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Theresa T.

Godinez Constitutional 1 (Weekdays)

G.R. No. 160261 November 10, 2003

ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR., petitioner, petitioner-in-intervention, vs. THE HOUSE


OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA,
THE SENATE, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON,
REPRESENTATIVE GILBERTO C. TEODORO, JR. AND REPRESENTATIVE FELIX
WILLIAM B. FUENTEBELLA, respondents.

JAIME N. SORIANO, respondent-in-Intervention,


SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, respondent-in-intervention.

Facts:

The Committee on Justice was tasked by way of resolution made by the House of
Representatives “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 July 22, 2002.
On June 2, 2003, an impeachment complaint was filed by former Pres. Estrada against
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven (7) Associate Justices of this Court for
“culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes.”
On October 13, 2003, the House Committee on Justice did not prosper the case for it is
“sufficient in form” but insufficient in substance. A second complaint against Chief
Justice Davide was then filed four (4) months and three (3) weeks after the first one was
lodged upon the result of the earlier resolution. The impeachment complaint was duly
signed by east one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of Representatives.

Issues:

Whether or not the House of Representatives can file a second impeachment complaint
within the one-year bar as prescribed by the Constitution.
Theresa T. Godinez Constitutional 1 (Weekdays)

Held:

No. Under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, a second impeachment complaint
against the same official within a one-year period is not permissible under law
regardless if it has the minimum required votes from the House of Representatives.
Emphasis is given to the word “initiated” as having the basic meaning of starting the act
of filing which, in this case, falls with the one (1) year bar.

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
Office 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy