FRANCISCO v.

HRET
G.R. No. 160261
November 10, 2003

Sometime on July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a

Resolution, initiated 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 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
that the first impeachment complaint was “sufficient in form,” but voted to
dismiss the same for being insufficient in substance.

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. On the same year, after the House Committee on Justice voted to
dismiss it, the second impeachment complaint was filed and launched with the
Secretary General of the House 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 concurred by the least one-

third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of Representatives. The
interpretation of the said lower house is that 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. It was opposed by the
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:

Is the second impeachment complaint valid?

RULING:

No. The court ruled basing on the Verba Legis of the law. The law is clear
under Art. XI, Sec. 3, pars. (1), (5) & (6) of the Constitution states:

“(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to

initiate all cases of impeachment.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of one year.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath
or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person
shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members
of the Senate.”

For reference, under the common dictionary, “Initiate” of course is

understood by ordinary men to mean, to begin, to commence, or set going.

Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the
initial action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes
clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated 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.