Você está na página 1de 1

ERNESTO FRANCISCO v THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Nov 4-5, 2003 Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc.

5, 2003 Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc. filed a

Motion for Intervention; World War II Veterans Legionnaires of the Philippines, Inc. also filed a "Petition-in-
FACTS: Intervention with Leave to Intervene; The motions for intervention were granted and both Senator
June 2, 2003 former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint (first impeachment Pimentel's Comment and Attorneys Macalintal and Quadra's Petition in Intervention were admitted
complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for petitioners plead for this Court to exercise the power of judicial review to determine the validity of the
"culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes second impeachment complaint.
Aug 5, 2003 the complaint was endorsed by Representatives Rolex T. Suplico, Ronaldo B. Zamora and Such power of judicial review was early on exhaustively expounded upon by Justice Jose P. Laurel (1935
Didagen Piang Dilangalen,7 and was referred to the House Committee on Justice Constitution) this "moderating power" to "determine the proper allocation of powers" of the different
Oct 13, 2003 the House Committee on Justice ruled that the first impeachment complaint was branches of government and "to direct the course of government along constitutional channels" is inherent
sufficient in form in all courts as a necessary consequence of the judicial power itself, which is "the power of the court to
Oct 22,2003 House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it for being insufficient in substance settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.
Oct 23, 2003 second impeachment complaint was filed with the Secretary General of the House by
Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. (First District, Tarlac) and Felix William B. Fuentebella (Third
District, Camarines Sur) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the
legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution; was accompanied by a "Resolution
of Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of
petitioner Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr., alleging that he has a duty as a member of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines to use all available legal remedies to stop an unconstitutional impeachment, that the
issues raised in his petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus are of transcendental
importance, and that he "himself was a victim of the capricious and arbitrary changes in the Rules of
Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings introduced by the 12th Congress
Oct 28, 2003 during the plenary session of the House of Representatives, a motion was put forth that
the second impeachment complaint be formally transmitted to the Senate, but it was not carried
because the House of Representatives adjourned for lack of quorum, and as reflected above, to date,
the Articles of Impeachment have yet to be forwarded to the Senate
Without necessarily giving the petitions due course, this Court resolved to (a)
consolidate the petitions; (b) require respondent House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as
the Solicitor General, to comment on the petitions not later than 4:30 p.m. of November 3, 2003; (c)
set the petitions for oral arguments on November 5, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.; and (d) appointed
distinguished legal experts as amici curiae
Oct 29, 2003 Senate of the Philippines, through Senate President Franklin M. Drilon, filed a
Manifestation stating that insofar as it is concerned, the petitions have no basis in law or in fact, adding
that as of the time of the filing of the petitions, no justiciable issue was presented before it since (1) its
constitutional duty to constitute itself as an impeachment court commences only upon its receipt of
the Articles of Impeachment, which it had not, and (2) the principal issues raised by the petitions
pertain exclusively to the proceedings in the House of Representatives
Oct 30, 2003 Atty. Jaime Soriano filed a "Petition for Leave to Intervene" questioning the status
quo Resolution issued by this Court on October 28, 2003 on the ground that it would unnecessarily put
Congress and this Court in a "constitutional deadlock" and praying for the dismissal of all the petitions
as the matter in question is not yet ripe for judicial determination.