-

Whether filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice

Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the House of Representatives falls within the one
year bar provided in the Constitution, and whether the resolution thereof is a
political question
July 22, 2002 HRep Resolution, sponsored by Rep. Fuentebella, directing the
Committee on Justice to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the
manner of disbursements and expenditures by the CJ of the Supreme Court of
the Judiciary Development Fund
June 2, 2003 former President Joseph Estrada filed an impeachment
complaint (first impeachment complaint) against CJ Davide Jr. and seven
Associate Justices for culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of
public trust and other high crimes.
House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first
impeachment complaint was sufficient in form, but dismissed the same on
October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance.
October 23, 2003, the second impeachment complaint was filed with the
Secretary General of the House against CJ Davide Jr., founded on the alleged
results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House
Resolution, accompanied by a Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment
signed by at least 1/3 of all the Members of the HRep.
Most of the instant petitions contend that the filing of the second
impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of
Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution no impeachment proceedings shall
be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one
year.
Petitioners plead for this Court to exercise the power of judicial review to
determine the validity of the second impeachment complaint
October 29, 2003, The Senate, through Senate President Drilon, filed a
Manifestation stating that the petitions are premature and 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, (2) the principal issues raised
by the petitions pertain exclusively to the proceedings in the HRep.
Issues: whether or not the power of judicial review extends to those arising
from impeachment proceedings; whether or not the essential prerequisites
for the exercise of the power of judicial review have been fulfilled

Judicial Review
-

SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,

and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.
-

Angara v Electoral Commission

o (Laurel, J.) In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only
constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper
allocation of powers between the several departments and among the
integral or constituent units thereof.
o This moderating power to determine the proper allocation of powers of
the different branches of government and to direct the course of
government along constitutional channels is inherent in all courts as a
necessary consequence of the judicial power itself which is the power
of the court to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable.
Well-settled principles of constitutional construction
o Verba legis the words in the constitution must be given their ordinary
meaning except where technical terms are employed.
o Ratio legis est anima where there is ambiguity, the words should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.
o Ut magis valeat quam pereat The Constitution is to be interpreted as
a whole.
Speaker De Venecia, et. Al. the constitution has excluded impeachment
proceedings from the coverage of judicial review; impeachment is a political
action which cannot assume a judicial character. Hence any question, issue or
incident, arising at any stage of the impeachment proceeding is beyond the
reach of judicial review.
o Respondents rely heavily on American authorities
Judicial review over impeachment proceedings runs counter to
the framers decision to allocate to different fora the powers to
try impeachments and to try crimes; it disturbs the system of
checks and balances, under which impeachment Is the only
legislative check on the judiciary
Respondents likewise point to deliberations on the US
Constitution to show the intent to isolate the judicial power of
review in cases of impeachment
o Reliance upon American jurisprudence, the American Constitution and
American authorities cannot be credited to support the proposition that
the Senates sole power to try and decide impeachment cases is a
textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of all issues
pertaining to impeachment to the legislature to the total exclusion of
the power of judicial review to check and restrain any grave abuse of
the impeachment process.
o American jurisprudence and authorities and American Constitution are
of dubious application for these are no longer controlling within our

jurisdiction and have only limited persuasive merit insofar as Philippine

constitutional law is concerned
Difference of judicial power in US SC from Philippine SC
o the power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to the US
Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature
o granted to the Philippine Supreme Court and lower courts, as expressly
provided for in the Constitution, is not just a power but also a duty and
it was given an expanded definition to include the power to correct any
grave abuse of discretion on the part of any government branch.
Power of the HRep over impeachment proceedings:
o US Constitution bestows sole power of impeachment to the HRep
without limitation
o Philippine Constitution, though vesting in the HRep the exclusive power
to initiate impeachment cases provides for several limitations to the
exercise of such power, i.e. manner of filing, required vote to impeach,
and the one year bar on the impeachment of one and the same official

Essential Requisites for Judicial Review

-

The person challenging the act must have standing to challenge

o Standing legal standing, locus standi, personal and substantial
interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain
direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged
o A reading of the petitions shows that it has advanced constitutional
issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their
seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. It, therefore, behooves
this Court to relax the rules on standing and to resolve the issues
presented by it.
Ripeness and Prematurity
o For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite
that something had by then been accomplished or performed by either
branch before a court may come into the picture.
o The prerequisite that the alleged unconstitutional act should be
accomplished and performed before suit has been complied with
Justiciability
o Political question those questions which, under the Constitution, are
to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature
of executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
o Chief Justice Concepcion judiciary is the weakest since the legislature
holds the purse and the executive the sword, the judiciary has nothing
to enforce its decisions or commands except power of reason and
appeal to conscience which reflects the will of God, and is the most
powerful of all other powers without exception

The defense of the political question was rejected because the issue
was clearly justiciable
Political questions are beyond judicial review
The reason for respect of the doctrine of separation of powers to
be maintained. Courts can review questions which are not truly
political in nature
Lis mota
o Courts will not touch the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly
unavoidable and is the very lis mota or crux of the controversy
o This Court holds that the two remaining issues constitute the very lis
mota of the instant controversy: (1) Whether Sections 16 1 and 172 of
Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules adopted by the 12 th Congress
are unconstitutional for violating the provisions of Section 3, Article XI
of the Constitution, and (2) Whether the second impeachment
complaint is barred under Section 3(5)3 of Article XI of the Constitution.
o

RULING
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.
on October 23, 2003 is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of
the Constitution.
1 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.In cases where a verified complaint or a resolution of impeachment is filed or
endorsed, as the case may be, by at least one-third (1/3) of the Members of the
House, impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated at the time of the filing of such verified
complaint or resolution of impeachment with the Secretary General.

2 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)

3 Section 3 (5) says, "No impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same official more
than once within a period of one year,"

RATIO