5) Francisco vs HRET

Francisco vs. HRET Stare Decisis – “to stand by things decided”; prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents. *NOTE: This is a very long case, touching on multiple constitutional issues. My personal take on this, as related to Stare Decisis, is the question of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the impeachment p roceedings. Others may have different interpretations, so if you have time try and scan through the case. Constitutional issues: Article XI, Section 3, Paragraphs 1, 5, 6 and 8 SECTION 3. (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. (8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section . (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Facts: 1. President Joseph Estrada filed impeachment complaint vs. Chief Justice Davide and 7 other justices on June 2, 2003 (first complaint). 2. Second complaint was filed on October 23, 2003, 1 day after first complaint was dismissed. 3. Instant petitions arose contending that second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional. Issues (as related to Stare Decisis): W/N the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear this case or the power to prohibit the House of Representatives from performing its constitutionally mandated duty to initiate impeachment cases (power of judicial review). Held: Yes. Ratio: 1. Sec. 1, Article VIII of 1987 Constitution:

5) Francisco vs HRET

Documents

Transcript of 5) Francisco vs HRET