[Power of Judicial Review]

Ernesto Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives

G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
Ponente: Justice Carpio-Morales
Facts:
There can be no constitutional crisis arising from a conflict, no matter how passionate and seemingly irreconcilable
it may appear to be, over the determination by the independent branches of government of the nature, scope and
extent of their respective constitutional powers where the Constitution itself provides for the means and bases for its
resolution. Issues are whether or not filing of second impeachment complaint against CJ Davide, Jr. with HR falls
within the 1year ban provided in the Constitution, and whether or not resolution thereof is a political question. On
November 28, 2001, following Section8, ArtXI of the Constitution, Congress adopted its procedure in impeachment
proceedings, providing therein that 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. HR adopted a resolution directing its committee on justice to investigate, in aid of legislation, the
disbursements by CJ of the JDF. Former PJEstrada then filed an impeachment complaint (first) against Davide, Jr.
and 7Associate Justices. The house committee on justice found the impeachment complaint sufficient in form but
voted to dismiss it for lack of substance (To date, the report has not yet been sent to HR in plenary.). Almost
5months later, another complaint signed by at least 1/3 of all HR members was filed against Davide. Instant petition
prays 2nd impeachment complaint is unconstitutional for it violated constitutional prohibition that: [n]o
impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.
2nd complaint was not formally transmitted to Senate for lack of quorum. HS De Venecia, Jr. said SC does not have
jurisdiction to hear, much less prohibit HR from initiating impeachment proceedings.
Issue:
Whether or not the second complaint may prosper.
Held:
No. Unconstitutional. SCs power of judicial review emanates from Sec1, ArtVIII, providing: 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.
1935 Constitution did not contain paragraph of said section. The moderating power to determine proper allocation of
powers of different branches of government and to direct the course of government along constitutional
channels is inherent in all courts[25] 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. Even as
early as 1902, power of judicial review was exercised by courts to invalidate constitutionally infirm acts. VV
Mendoza: executive and legislative branches of our government in fact effectively acknowledged this power of
judicial review in NCC7(2-3). Judicial review integral to maintaining checks and balances collorary to separation of
powers, forming bedrock of our republican government. and insures that its vast powers are utilized only for the
benefit of the people for which it serves. Judicial review is the chief, indeed the only, medium of participation or
instrument of intervention of the judiciary in that balancing operation. To be ensured against grave abuse of
discretion by any branch of instrumentality of government, Sec1, ArtVIII expressly provides expanded certiorari
jurisdiction of SC as a product of martial law experience, where SC was limited by the abuse of the political
question. Courts determine limits of power of the agencies and offices of the government as well as those of its
officers. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature. Courts cannot
evade the duty to settle matters of this nature, by claiming that such matters constitute a political question.
Constitution limits HR power to initiate impeachment proceedings, one of which is the one year ban on the same
official. Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. There are
judicially discoverable standards for determining validity of exercise of discretion through judicial power.
Initiation of impeachment proceeding starts from filing of verified complaint and referred to a house committee.
Impeachment proceeding is different from impeachment case. Congress is empowered to determine its rules of
proceedings, but may not ignore constitutional restraints. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated (filed
and referred) in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same official within a one year period
following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.