7/27/2019 Francisco Vs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/francisco-vs 1/5

Francisco Vs. House Of Representatives [415 SCRA 44; G.R. No. 160261; 10 Nov 2003]

Sunday, January 18, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes

Labels: Case Digests, Political Law 

Facts: Impeachment proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario

Davide. The justiciable controversy poised in front of the Court was the constitutionality of the

subsequent filing of a second complaint to controvert the rules of impeachment provided for by

law. 

Issue: Whether or Not the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario

G. Davide, Jr. with the House of Representativesfalls within the one year bar provided in the

Constitution and whether the resolution thereof is a political question – has resulted in a political

crisis. 

Held: In any event, it is with the absolute certainty that our Constitution is sufficient to address all

the issues which this controversy spawns that this Court unequivocally pronounces, at the first 

instance, that the feared resort to extra-constitutional methods of resolving it is neither necessary

nor legally permissible. Both its resolution and protection of the public interest lie in adherence to,

not departure from, the Constitution. 

In passing over the complex issues arising from the controversy, this Court is ever mindful of the

essential truth that the inviolate doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative, executive

or judicial branches of government by no means prescribes for absolute autonomy in the discharge

by each of that part of the governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign people.

At the same time, the corollary doctrine of checks and balances which has been carefully calibrated

by the Constitution to temper the official acts of each of these three branches must be given effect 

without destroying their indispensable co-equality. There exists no constitutional basis for the

contention that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the

system of checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one

section is not to be allowed to defeat another." Both are integral components of the calibrated

system of independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government act 

beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution.

When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is

invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a

result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must 

appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to

which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by

7/27/2019 Francisco Vs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/francisco-vs 2/5

reason of the statute or act complained of. In fine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a

public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. 

In the case of a taxpayer , he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally

disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is a

wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Before he

can invoke the power of judicial review, however, he must specifically prove that he has sufficient 

interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he would sustain

a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is not sufficient 

that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. 

At all events, courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's suit should be

entertained. This Court opts to grant standing to most of the petitioners, given their allegation that 

any impending transmittal to the Senate of the Articles of Impeachment and the ensuing trial of the

Chief Justice will necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds.

As for a legislator , he is allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which he claims

infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. Indeed, a member of the House of Representatives has

standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in

his office. 

The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its ordinary meaning. Thus when a

proposal reached the floor proposing that "A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the

House shall be necessary… to initiate impeachment proceedings," this was met by a proposal to

delete the line on the ground that the vote of the House does not initiate impeachment proceeding

but rather the filing of a complaint does. 

To the argument that only the House of Representatives as a body can initiate impeachment 

proceedings because Section 3 (1) says "The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive

power to initiate all cases of impeachment," This is a misreading of said provision and is contrary to

the principle of reddendo singula singulis by equating "impeachment cases" with "impeachment 

proceeding."

Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of 

the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third

of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House, the

meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been

initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one

year period.

7/27/2019 Francisco Vs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/francisco-vs 3/5

 

The Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the

main issue of whether the impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice transgressed

the constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about assuming

jurisdiction where it had none, nor indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly political

questions. Because it is not at all the business of this Court to assert judicial dominance over the

other two great branches of the government.

No one is above the law or the Constitution. This is a basic precept in any legal system which

recognizes equality of all men before the law as essential to the law's moral authority and that of its

agents to secure respect for and obedience to its commands. Perhaps, there is no other government 

branch or instrumentality that is most zealous in protecting that principle of legal equality other

than the Supreme Court which has discerned its real meaning and ramifications through its

application to numerous cases especially of the high-profile kind in the annals of jurisprudence. The

Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court. But just because he

is the Chief Justice does not imply that he gets to have less in law than anybody else. The law is

solicitous of every individual's rights irrespective of his station in life. 

Thus, 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 is barred under paragraph 5,

section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution. 

VINUYA VS. SEC. ROMULO

G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010 FACTS:

This is an original Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with an application forthe issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the Office of the Executive

Secretary, the Secretary of the DFA, the Secretary of the DOJ, and the OSG.

Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit organization registered

with the SEC, established for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese

military forces in the Philippines during the Second World War.

Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the Executive Department through the DOJ,DFA, and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military

officers who ordered the establishment of the “comfort women” stations in the Philippines. But 

officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the petitioners, and took the position that 

the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already been fully satisfied byJapan’s compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan. 

Hence, this petition where petitioners pray for this court to (a) declare that respondents committed

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion in refusing to espouse their

7/27/2019 Francisco Vs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/francisco-vs 4/5

claims for the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against them; and (b) compel the

respondents to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against 

Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other international tribunals.

Respondents maintain that all claims of the Philippines and its nationals relative to the war were

dealt with in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of 

1956.

On January 15, 1997, the Asian Women’s Fund and the Philippine government signed aMemorandum of Understanding for medical and welfare support programs for former comfort 

women. Over the next five years, these were implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and

Development.

ISSUE:WON the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing petitioners’

claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan.RULING:

Petition lacks merit. From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive Department has the exclusive

prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners’ claims against Japan. Political questions refer “to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the

people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has beendelegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues

dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure.” One type of case of political questions involves questions of foreign relations. It is well-established

that “the conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the

executive and legislative–’the political’–departments of the government, and the propriety of what 

may be done in the exercise of this political power is not sub ject to judicial inquiry or decision.” are

delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only

by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil.

But not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and courts certainly

possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements. However, thequestion whether the Philippine government should espouse claims of its nationals against a

foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for which is demonstrablycommitted by our Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches. In this case, the

Executive Department has already decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all

claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. The wisdom of 

such decision is not for the courts to question.

The President, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail inforeign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of 

information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials.The Executive Department has determined that tak ing up petitioners’ cause would be inimical to

our country’s foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan, thereby creatingserious implications for stability in this region. For the to overturn the Executive Department’s

determination would mean an assessment of the foreign policy judgments by a coordinate political

branch to which authority to make that judgment has been constitutionally committed.From a municipal law perspective, certiorari will not lie. As a general principle, where such an

extraordinary length of time has lapsed between the treaty’s conclusion and our consideration – the

Executive must be given ample discretion to assess the foreign policy considerations of espousing a

claim against Japan, from the standpoint of both the interests of the petitioners and those of the

Republic, and decide on that basis if apologies are sufficient, and whether further steps are

appropriate or necessary.

In the international sphere, traditionally, the only means available for individuals to bring a claim

within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a

7/27/2019 Francisco Vs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/francisco-vs 5/5

government to bring a claim on the individual’s behalf. By taking up the case of one of its subjects

and by resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf, a State is in

reality asserting its own right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respect for the rules of 

international law.

Within the limits prescribed by international law, a State may exercise diplomatic protection by

whatever means and to whatever extent it thinks fit, for it is its own right that the State is asserting.

Should the natural or legal person on whose behalf it is acting consider that their rights are not adequately protected, they have no remedy in international law. All they can do is resort to national

law, if means are available, with a view to furthering their cause or obtaining redress. All these

questions remain within the province of municipal law and do not affect the position

internationally.Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this analysis.

Petitioners have not shown that the crimes committed by the Japanese army violated jus cogensprohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators

of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens.

The term erga omnes (Latin: in relation to everyone) in international law has been used as a legalterm describing obligations owed by States towards the community of states as a whole. Essential

distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the internationalcommunity as a whole, and those arising vis-à-vis another State in the field of diplomatic

protection. By their very nature, the former are the concern of all States. In view of the importanceof the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection; they are

obligations erga omnes.The term “jus cogens” (literally, “compelling law”) refers to norms that command peremptory

authority, superseding conflicting treaties and custom. Jus cogens norms are considered

peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory, do not admit derogation, and can be modified

only by general international norms of equivalent authority

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.