Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    5 - FRANCISCO - JR v. HOR - GR 160261

    Uploaded by

    Cristian Gregor Atacador
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the power of judicial review over impeachment proceedings. It discusses two relevant prior cases, Tanada v. Angara and Tanada v. Cuenco, which established that when an act is alleged to violate the Constitution, it is the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. The case involved petitions challenging the filing of a second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice within one year. The Court ultimately ruled that it has the power and jurisdiction to determine if the Senate or its officials violated the Constitution in impeachment proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    5 - FRANCISCO - JR v. HOR - GR 160261

    Uploaded by

    Cristian Gregor Atacador
    14 views1 page
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the power of judicial review over impeachment proceedings. It discusses two relevant prior cases, Tanada v. Angara and Tanada v. Cuenco, which established that when an act is alleged to violate the Constitution, it is the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. The case involved petitions challenging the filing of a second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice within one year. The Court ultimately ruled that it has the power and jurisdiction to determine if the Senate or its officials violated the Constitution in impeachment proceedings.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    5_FRANCISCO.JR v. HOR_ GR 160261

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the power of judicial review over impeachment proceedings. It discusses two relevant prior cases, Tanada v. Angara and Tanada v. Cuenco, which established that when an act is alleged to violate the Constitution, it is the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. The case involved petitions challenging the filing of a second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice within one year. The Court ultimately ruled that it has the power and jurisdiction to determine if the Senate or its officials violated the Constitution in impeachment proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views1 page

    5 - FRANCISCO - JR v. HOR - GR 160261

    Uploaded by

    Cristian Gregor Atacador
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the power of judicial review over impeachment proceedings. It discusses two relevant prior cases, Tanada v. Angara and Tanada v. Cuenco, which established that when an act is alleged to violate the Constitution, it is the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. The case involved petitions challenging the filing of a second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice within one year. The Court ultimately ruled that it has the power and jurisdiction to determine if the Senate or its officials violated the Constitution in impeachment proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    B2-ATACADOR, CRISTIAN GREGOR E.

    CASE DIGEST 5 (SEPTEMBER 10, 2022 SESSION)


    G.R. NO. 160261 I NOVEMBER 10, 2003I FRANCISCO VS. HOUSE OF
    REPRESENTATIVES CITING ANGARA
    FACTS:
    - On June 2, 2003, former president Joseph E. Estrada filed the first impeachment complaint
    against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and seven Justices, which was later dismissed for
    being insufficient in substance.
    - The second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice was then filed by
    Representative Gilbert Teodoro and Felix Fuentabella on October 23, 2003. Thus, arose the
    instant petitions against the House of Representatives et al, most of which contend that the
    filing of the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of
    Section 5, Article XI of the Constitution, “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
    against the same official more than once within the period of one year.”
    - Senator Aquilino Pimintel Jr, filed a Motion to Intervene, stating that the consolidated
    petitions be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that the sole power, authority
    and jurisdiction of the Senate as the impeachment court be recognized and upheld pursuant
    to the provision of Article XI of the Constitution.
    ISSUE:
    Whether the power of judicial review extends to those arising from impeachment
    proceedings.
    RULE:
    In Tanada v. Angara, in seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that
    it contravened the Constitution, it held that the petition raises a justiciable controversy and
    that when an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the
    Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the
    dispute. In Tanada v. Cuenco, it held that although under the Constitution, the legislative
    power is vested exclusively in Congress, this does not detract from the power of the courts to
    pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress.
    ANALYSIS:
    There exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review
    over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the
    Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be allowed to defeat
    another.” Both are integral components of the calibrated system of independence and
    interdependence that ensures that no branch of government act beyond the powers assigned
    to it by the Constitution.
    The supremacy of the Constitution is enforced and upheld by the Judiciary through the power of
    judicial review or the power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts for
    their conformity with the Constitution.

    CONCLUSION:

    YES. The Court ruled that it is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire
    whether the Senate or its officials committed a violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of
    discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives.

    You might also like