Francisco vs HRET

Facts: The case is about the filing of the second impeachment complain of Rep. Gilberto
Teodoro, Jr. and Rep. Felix Fuentabella against Chief Justice Hilario Davide due to the manner
of disbursements and expenditures of Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). Petitioners claimed
that the second filing was unconstitutional under the Sec 5 Art XI of the 1987 Constitution
which states that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of one year.

Issue:
WON House Rule Sec 16 & 17 is unconstitutional under Sec 5 Art XI?
WON the court has the power to invoke judicial review?
WON the petitioners have legal standing in the case?

Held:

Defendants argues that intervention of the court is not necessary as the case raised a political
question in nature. The court held that the case at hand is of transcendental importance which
accepted the petitions as to be under the judicial review of the court. The court believes that the
Constitution clearly granted judicial power under Art VIII Sec 2 to assert the solemn and sacred
obligation assigned to it by the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual
controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.As the final
arbriter, SC effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine
the law and hence declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.With
the expanded jurisdiction, the power of judicial review includes the power of review over
justiciable issues in the impeachment proceeding.

On the House Rule issue, respondents claims that the term “initiate” does not mean the actual
filing of the complaint but when the Justice Committee votes in favour of impeachment when the
House reverses a contrary vote of the Committee. From the records of the framers of the
Constitution, it was settled that the initiation of impeachment proceedings start with the filing of
the complaints and the one-third vote of the House in a resolution of the impeachment. The term
file must be understood in its ordinary meaning. Considering the first impeachment complaints
filed by Pres. Estrada, the second complaint violates the constitutional prohibition against the
initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same impeachable officer within a one-year
period.

Ruling: Sec 16 & 17 of Rule V of the Rues of Procedurein Impeachment Proceedings are
unconstitutional. the 2nd impeachment complaint is barred under par 5 sec 3 of Article XI of the
Constitution.