Francisco vs.

HR
G.R. No. 160261 November 10, 2003

2. Whether or not Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules

on Impeachment adopted by the 12th Congress are
unconstitutional.

Carpio Morales, J.:

Facts:
On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a
Resolution which directed the Committee on Justice 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). Then
on June 2, 2003, former President Joseph Estrada filed an
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide
Jr. and seven Associate Justices. The complaint was endorsed
and was referred to the House Committee in accordance with
Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution.
The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003
that the first impeachment complaint was sufficient in form,
but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being
insufficient in substance. On October 23, 2003, a second
impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative
inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution. 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.
Issues:
1. Can the Court make a determination of what constitutes
an impeachable offense?

3. Whether or not the second impeachment complaint is

barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution.
Held:
1. No. Such a determination is a purely political question
which the Constitution has left to the sound discretion of the
legislation. Although Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution
enumerates six grounds for impeachment, two of these,
namely, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust, elude
a precise definition.
2. Yes. The provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the
House Impeachment Rules contravene Section 3 (5) of Article
XI as they give the term initiate a meaning different from
filing.
3. Yes. 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 on June 2, 2003 and the second impeachment
complaint filed was on October 23, 2003, it violates the
constitutional
prohibition
against
the
initiation
of
impeachment proceedings against the same impeachable
officer within a one-year period.