Supreme Court: Davide Impeachment Unconstitutional
14 November 2003 -- In spite of the constitutional prohibition of filing a second impeachment against the same official in the same year, a second impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Hilario Davide on 23 October 2003. The second impeachment complaint was filed three days after the first impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices was defeated in the House Committee on Justice on 20 October 2003.

NPC Congressmen Gilbert Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella headed the complaint against the Chief Justice. With more than 80 signatures of House Representatives, mostly from NPC, the articles of impeachment was directly sent to the office of the Secretary General. The articles of impeachment did not pass the House Committee on Justice thereby depriving the Committee the chance of deliberating the impeachment complaint.

The impeachment complaint alleged that Chief Justice Hilario Davide misused the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). Representatives Fuentebella and Teodoro used the Commission on Audit (COA) report on the JDF as a basis for their complaint. COA, however, later cleared the Chief Justice against any impropriety on the use of the JDF.

The House of Representatives adjourned its session on 28 October 2003, three days ahead of the scheduled 30 October adjournment. Because of the early adjournment of the sessions, the pro-impeachment Representatives failed to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

The move of some Representatives for the impeachment of the Chief Justice and the refusal of the latter to allow the House of Representatives to scrutinize the JDF brought an impending constitutional crisis. Meanwhile, acting on the petition to declare the impeachment complaint unconstitutional, the Supreme Court declared a status quo and invited the House Representatives for the oral arguments that were held on November 5 and 6. The House did not send representation during the oral arguments, during which the court listened to the views of the invited amici curae or "friends of the court".

The Supreme Court released a decision regarding the unconstitutionality of the impeachment complaint before the session of the House of Representatives commenced on 10 November. This move pre-empted the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

The Supreme Court decided that it has jurisdiction over the impeachment case, with 14 Justices voting unanimously. However, Justices Josue Bellosillo, Reynato Puno, and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago said the court should exercise judicial restraint. Thirteen Justices, meanwhile, said the second impeachment is unconstitutional. Justice Puno, on the other hand, said that the time is not yet ripe for the SC to decide whether or not the complaint is constitutional or not.

In the afternoon of 10 November, a debate ensued on whether or not the articles of impeachment could still be transmitted to the Senate despite the Supreme Court's decision. To resolve the debate, a nominal voting was conducted, with 115 favoring to honor the decision of the Supreme Court, and 77 voting against it.

The House of Representatives is set to amend its impeachment rules to avert a similar scenario in the future. Sections 16 and 17 of the House impeachment rules states that "an impeachment proceeding against an official is deemed initiated on the day the Committee on Justice finds that the verified complaint is sufficient in substance". The pro-impeachment Representatives used sections 16 and 17 of the House impeachment rules to justify the second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice. The House will also amend the much talked about Presidential Decree 1949 that created the JDF, to give Congress the right to scrutinize the JDF of the courts.