Francisco, Jr. vs.

Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga

Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., 415 SCRA 44, G.R. No. 160262, G.R. No. 160263,
G.R. No. 160277, G.R. No. 160292, G.R. No. 160295, G.R. No. 160310, G.R. No.
160318, G.R. No. 160342, G.R. No. 160343, G.R. No. 160360, G.R. No. 160365,
G.R. No. 160370, G.R. No. 160376, G.R. No. 160392, G.R. No. 160397, G.R. No.
160403, G.R. No. 160405 November 10, 2003
Facts:

The House of Representatives, on July 22, 2002, adopted a Resolution, sponsored by

Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, 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 June 2, 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 this Court for “culpable
violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes.” The House
Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first impeachment complaint was
“sufficient in form,”9 but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in
substance.10 To date, the Committee Report to this effect has not yet been sent to the House in
plenary in accordance with the said Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. Four months
and three weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the first complaint or on October 23, 2003, a
day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment
complaint11 was filed with the Secretary General of the House12 by Representatives Gilberto C.
Teodoro, Jr. (First District, Tarlac) and Felix William B. Fuentebella (Third District, Camarines
Sur) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative
inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution. This second impeachment complaint was
accompanied by a “Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by at least one-third (1/3) of
all the Members of the House of Representatives. Since the first impeachment complaint never
made it to the floor for resolution, respondent House of Representatives concludes that the one
year bar prohibiting the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same officials could not
have been violated as the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide and seven
Associate Justices had not been initiated as the House of Representatives, acting as the collective
body, has yet to act on it. Opposing petitioners on the other hand interpreted the word “initiate” to
mean the filing of the complaint. Since there was already a first complaint that never got through
the Committee, no impeachment complaint maybe filed until the lapse of the 1 year period.

Issue 1: Whether or not the Supreme Court has the Power of Judicial Review.

Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the
government in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution; 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.—This Court’s power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the
government in Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987 Constitution: 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. (Emphasis supplied) Such power of judicial review
was early on exhaustively expounded upon by Justice Jose P. Laurel in the definitive 1936 case of
Angara v. Electoral Commission after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution whose provisions,
unlike the present Constitution, did not contain the present provision in Article VIII, Section 1,
par. 2 on what judicial power includes. Thus, Justice Laurel discoursed: x x x In times of social
disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten
or marred, if not entirely obliterated. 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.

Judicial review is indeed an integral component of the delicate system of checks and balances
which, together with the corollary principle of separation of powers, forms the bedrock of our
republican form of government and insures that its vast powers are utilized only for the benefit of
the people for which it serves. The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system
of government.It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution.
Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction,
and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers
are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely
unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system
of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the
government. x x x And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively
checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare
executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.

Issue 2: What are the requisites for Judicial Review?

Ruling:

The requisites is clearly stated in Angara v. Electoral Commission, it clearly stated that 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.