FRANCISCO v.

House of Representatives
Facts:
On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada led 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," but voted to dismiss the same
on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance
On October 23, 2003, a day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss
it, the second impeachment complaint filed by Representatives Gilberto C.
Teodoro, Jr. and friend against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. 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. Thus arose the instant petitions against the
House of Representatives, et al ., most of which petitions contend that the ling 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."
Respondent House of Representatives, through Speaker De Venecia, argues that
Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules do not violate
Section 3 (5) of Article XI of our present Constitution, contending that the term
"initiate" does not mean "to file;" 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.
Issue:
Whether or not the second impeachment complaint is barred by the filing of the
first impeachment complaint within the one year from each other.
Held:
It is thus clear that the framers intended "initiation" to start with the filing of the
complaint. The initiation of impeachment proceedings starts with the filing of the
complaint, and the vote of one-third of the House in a resolution of impeachment
does not initiate the impeachment proceedings which was already initiated by the
filing of a verified complaint under Section 3, paragraph (2), Article XI of the
Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in
Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representatives
on November 28, 2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which was led
by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with
the Office of the Secretary General of the House of Representatives on October
23, 2003 is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.
SO ORDERED.