Consti Digests 2

Francisco vs.
House of Representatives
Posted by she lamsen
TOPIC: Political Question
GR 160261
10 November 2003
Facts: On 28 November 2001, the 12th

Congress of the House of Representatives
adopted and approved the Rules of Procedure in
Impeachment Proceedings, superseding the
previous House Impeachment Rules approved
by the 11th Congress. On 22 July 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). On 2 June 2003, former President
Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment
complaint (first impeachment complaint)
against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and
seven Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
for "culpable violation of the Constitution,
betrayal of the public trust and other high
crimes." The complaint was endorsed by House
Representatives, and was referred to the House
Committee on Justice on 5 August 2003 in
accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the
Constitution. The House Committee on Justice
ruled on 13 October 2003 that the first
impeachment complaint was "sufficient in
form," but voted to dismiss the same on 22
October 2003 for being insufficient in
substance. The following day or on 23 October
2003, the second impeachment complaint was
filed with the Secretary General of the House by
House Representatives against Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged
results of the legislative inquiry initiated by
above-mentioned House Resolution. The second
impeachment complaint was accompanied by a
"Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment"
signed by at least 1/3 of all the Members of the
House of Representatives. Various petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed
with the Supreme Court against the House of
Representatives, et. al., most of which 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 that "[n]o impeachment

proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one
year."
Issue: Whether or not the petitions are plainly
premature and have no basis in law or in fact,
adding that as of the time of filing of the
petitions, no justiciable issue was presented
before it.
Held: The courts power of judicial review, like
almost all powers conferred by the Constitution,
is subject to several limitations, namely: (1) an
actual case or controversy calling for the
exercise of judicial power; (2) the person
challenging the act must have standing to
challenge; he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
result of its enforcement; (3) the question of
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity; and (4) the issue of
constitutionality must be the very lis mota of
the case.
This Court did not heed the call to adopt a
hands-off stance as far as the question of the
constitutionality of initiating the impeachment
complaint against Chief Justice Davide is
concerned. The Court found the existence in
full of all the requisite conditions for its exercise
of its constitutionally vested power and duty of
the judicial review over an issue whose
resolution precisely called for the construction
or interpretation of a provision of the
fundamental law of the land. What lies in here
is an issue of a genuine constitutional material
which only this Court can properly and
competently address and adjudicate in
accordance with the clear-cut allocation of
powers under our system of government.
This Court in the present petitions subjected to

judicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only
the main issue of whether the impeachment
proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice
transgressed the constitutionally imposed oneyear time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go
about assuming jurisdiction where it had none,
nor indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out
of decidedly political questions. Because it not
at all the business of this Court to assert judicial
dominance over the other two great branches
of the government.
Political questions are 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 or executive
branch of the Government. It is concerned
with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
legality, of a particular measure.
Citing Chief Justice Concepcion, when he

became a Constitutional Commissioner: The
powers of government are generally considered
divided into three branches: the Legislative, the
Executive, and the Judiciary. Each one is
supreme within its own sphere and independent
of the others. Because of that supremacy
power to determine whether a given law is valid
or not is vested in courts of justice courts of
justice determine the limits of powers of the
agencies and offices of the government as well
as those of its officers. The judiciary is the final
arbiter on the question whether or not a branch
of government or any of its officials has acted
without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction,
or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or
lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial
power but also a duty to pass judgment on
matters of this nature a duty which cannot
be abdicated by the mere specter of the
political law doctrine.
The determination of a truly political question

from a non-justiciable political question lies in
the answer to the question of whether there are
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or
functions conferred upon political bodies. If
there are, then our courts are duty-bound to
examine whether the branch or instrumentality
of the government properly acted within such
limits.
The Court held that it has no jurisdiction over

the issue that goes into the merits of the
second impeachment complaint. More
importantly, any discussion of this would
require this Court to make a determination of
what constitutes an impeachable offense. Such
a determination is a purely political question
which the Constitution has left to the sound

discretion of the legislation.
Goldwater v Carter
Brief Fact Summary. President Carter
terminated a treaty with Taiwan without
congressional approval.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. This is a political

question and not justiciable.
Facts. President Carter terminated a treaty with
Taiwan, and a few Congressional members felt
that this deprived them of their Constitutional
function. However, no Congressional action was
ever taken. The Senate considered a resolution
that would require the President to get Senate
approval before any mutual defense treaty
could be terminated, but there was no final vote
on the resolution.
Issue. Is this issue of whether a President can

terminate a treaty without Congressional
approval a non-justiciable political question?
Held. Yes. Whether or not a President can
terminate a treaty closely involves his foreing
relations authority and therefore is not
reviewable by the Supreme Court.
Dissent. Even though the Court cannot review

political questions, the court has the power to
review whether or not a particular branch of
government has exclusive decision-making
power over an issue.
Concurrence. This issue was not ripe because
the Senate never tried to invoke a resolution
against it. Were it ripe, however, the issue
would be justiciable because it would require an
interpretation of the Constitution. Even though
the Supreme Court cannot hear purely political
questions, it can review cases to determine if
the interpretation of the Constitution is correct.
Discussion. In the arena of foreign affairs, the
Court has held issues to be political questions
even though many Justices believe these issues
relate to the interpretation of the Constitution,
and are therefore reviewable. The Court places
a great emphasis on establishing a single,
unified voice for the nation on foreign affairs is

Consti Digests 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti Digests 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti Digests 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Francisco vs.

Facts: On 28 November 2001, the 12th

of the Constitution that "[n]o impeachment

This Court in the present petitions subjected to

Political questions are those questions which,

Citing Chief Justice Concepcion, when he

The determination of a truly political question

The Court held that it has no jurisdiction over

which the Constitution has left to the sound

Synopsis of Rule of Law. This is a political

Issue. Is this issue of whether a President can

Dissent. Even though the Court cannot review

You might also like