yyyuuuFACTS: House Bill No.

10900, the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB of 1994), was passed and approved by both houses of Congress on December 17, 1993. As passed, it imposed conditions and

limitations on certain items of appropriations in the proposed budget previously submitted by the President. It also authorized members of Congress to propose and identify projects
in the pork barrels allotted to them and to realign their respective operating budgets. Pursuant to the procedure on the passage and enactment of bills as prescribed by the Constitution, Congress presented the said bill to the President for consideration and approval. On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill into law, and declared the same to have become Republic Act NO. 7663, entitled AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (GAA of 1994). On the same day, the President delivered his Presidential Veto Message, specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed and on which he imposed certain conditions, as follows:

Francisco, Jr. V. Nagmamalasakit na mga Mananananggol ng mgaManggagawang Pilipino, Inc.Facts: -On June 2, 2003, former President Estrada filed an impeachment complaintagainst Chief Justice Davide, Jr. and seven Associate Chief Justices of theSupreme Court for culpable violation if the Constitution, betrayal of publictrust and other high crimes. Such complaint was grounded on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund.-The House Committee on Justice ruled that the first complaint was sufficientin form but insufficient in substance. Committee Report was not sent to theHouse in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution.-A second impeachment complaint was filed four months and three weekssince the filing of the first complaint, by Teodoro, Jr. and Fuentebella. Suchcomplaint was grounded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution.-Instant petitions arose against the HOR, most of which contend that the filingof the second impeachment is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section of Article XI of the Constitution. Issues: 1)

W ON the offenses alleged in the Second Impeachment complaintconstitute valid impeachable offense under the Constitution2)

W ON the second impeachment complaint was filed in accordance withSection 3(4), Article XI of the Constitution.3)

ON the legislative inquiry by the House Committee on Justice into the Judicial Development Fund is an unconsitutional infringement of theconstitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary.4)

W ON Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Impeachment adoptedby the 12 th Congress are unconstitutional for violating privisions of Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution.5)

W ON the second complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution. D iscussionIssue 1: The discussion of the issue of impeachable offense would require theSC to make a determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Suchdetermination of a purely political question which the Constitution has left tothe discretion of the legislation. W hile Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution gives six grounds forimpeachment, two of these, namely, other high crimes and betrayal of publictrust, still need a clear cut definition. The issue is a nonjusticiable politicalquestion beyond the scope of judicial power.

Issue 2: The second impeachment complaint was not filed in accordance withSection 3(4), Article XI of the Consitution. (4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by atleast one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute theArticles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. The verified complaint or resolution of impeachment was not filed by at least ine-tihrd of all the Members of the House. In order for the secondimpeachment to become the Articles of Impeachment and for trial in the Senateto bein, the verified complaint must be filed, not merely endorsed, by at leastone-third of the members of HOR. There should be 76 or more representatives who signed and verified thesecond impeachment complaint as complainants, signed and verified thesignatories to a resolution of impeachment. The Resolution of Endorsement/ Impeachment signed by at least one-third of the members of HOR as endorsers

is not the resolution of impeachment contemplated by the Constitution, such resolution of endorsement being necessary only from at least one member or any citiziedwith a verified impeachment complaint. Issue 3: This issue is far from the validity of the second impeachmentcomplaint. The resolution of the said issue would require the SC to form a ruleof constitutional law touching on, the separate matter of legislative inquiries inegenral, which would thus be broader than is required by the facts of theconsolidated cases.However, one argument is wort mentioning. Alfonso, et al. argues thatthe second impeachment complaint is invalid since it resulted from aResolution calling for a legislative inquiry into the JDF. This is unconstitutionalfor being: a) a violation of the rules and jurisprudence on investigation in aid of legislation, b) an open breach of the doctrine of separation of powers, c) aviolation of the constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary. D)an assault on the independence of the judiciary.