Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    Francisco vs. House of Representatives

    Uploaded by

    Ali Namla
    The Supreme Court ruled that while it has the power of judicial review over constitutional issues, it would not intervene in the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Davide that were initiated by the House of Representatives. The Court found that it could review whether the proceedings violated the one-year ban between impeachment complaints. However, it held that it did not have jurisdiction over issues relating to the merits of the impeachment complaints, as determining what constitutes an impeachable offense is a political question left to the legislature. The Court also held that its power of judicial review is subject to limitations like an actual case or controversy, the person challenging must have standing, issues must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the constitutionality must be the core issue

    Copyright:

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

    Francisco vs. House of Representatives

    Uploaded by

    Ali Namla
    111 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that while it has the power of judicial review over constitutional issues, it would not intervene in the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Davide that were initiated by the House of Representatives. The Court found that it could review whether the proceedings violated the one-year ban between impeachment complaints. However, it held that it did not have jurisdiction over issues relating to the merits of the impeachment complaints, as determining what constitutes an impeachable offense is a political question left to the legislature. The Court also held that its power of judicial review is subject to limitations like an actual case or controversy, the person challenging must have standing, issues must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the constitutionality must be the core issue

    Original Title

    18. FRANCISCO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    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 Supreme Court ruled that while it has the power of judicial review over constitutional issues, it would not intervene in the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Davide that were initiated by the House of Representatives. The Court found that it could review whether the proceedings violated the one-year ban between impeachment complaints. However, it held that it did not have jurisdiction over issues relating to the merits of the impeachment complaints, as determining what constitutes an impeachable offense is a political question left to the legislature. The Court also held that its power of judicial review is subject to limitations like an actual case or controversy, the person challenging must have standing, issues must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the constitutionality must be the core issue

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    111 views3 pages

    Francisco vs. House of Representatives

    Uploaded by

    Ali Namla
    The Supreme Court ruled that while it has the power of judicial review over constitutional issues, it would not intervene in the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Davide that were initiated by the House of Representatives. The Court found that it could review whether the proceedings violated the one-year ban between impeachment complaints. However, it held that it did not have jurisdiction over issues relating to the merits of the impeachment complaints, as determining what constitutes an impeachable offense is a political question left to the legislature. The Court also held that its power of judicial review is subject to limitations like an actual case or controversy, the person challenging must have standing, issues must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the constitutionality must be the core issue

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Francisco Vs.

    House Of Representatives
    415 SCRA 44; G.R. No. 160261
    November 10, 2003

    FACTS:
    The case at bar is a petition questioning the constitutionality of the impeachment
    proceedings being held by the House of Representatives against Chief Justice Davide.

    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 court’s 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 one-year 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.

    You might also like