Addendum to the Random Thoughts on the Impeachment of CJ Corona

There is an aspect of the due process requirement vis-a-vis the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona that is apparently lost amidst the noise – drowned for now by the tragedy wrought by Tropical Storm Sendong.

Random Thoughts on the Impeachment of CJ Corona

And so it came to pass. The unprecedented clash of the titans has escalated and resulted in the impeachment of the god-chief of Padre Faura by the minions of the god-king of Malacañang. On Monday, December 12, 2011, Chief Justice Renato Corona of the Philippine Supreme Court was impeached by the administration-dominated House of Representatives.

In Re del Castillo Plagiarism Controversy (Part III) : The February 8, 2011 Dissenting Opinions

The dissent of Justice Carpio

Justice Carpio, who had no participation in the decision, dissented from the majority resolution on two grounds. First, he argued that “[the Supreme] Court has no jurisdiction to decide in an administrative case whether a sitting Justice of this Court has committed misconduct in office as this power belongs exclusively to Congress.” Second, he said that “in writing judicial decisions a judge must comply with the Law on Copyright as the judge has no power to exempt himself from the mandatory requirements of the law.”

In Re Del Castillo Plagiarism Controversy (Part II) : The February 8, 2011 Per Curiam Resolution (With Separate Concurrences)

In its Per Curiam Resolution promulgated last February 8, 2011 in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, the Supreme Court en banc DENIED the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

The Court first reiterated the definition of plagiarism that it used in the October 12, 2010 decision, thus:

In Re Del Castillo Plagiarism Controversy (Part I) : The October 12, 2010 Per Curiam Decision

Yesterday’s issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer carried the headline “House body tightens noose on SC justice.” It was reported that the House committee on justice voted 40-7 last Wednesday to declare the long-pending impeachment complaint against Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo sufficient in substance. Justice del Castillo was purportedly given 10 days from Wednesday to answer the complaint. [This is INACCURATE. The 10 days is counted from receipt of the formal notice from the committee.] 

Rubi vs. Soliman : An Application of the Common-Law Doctrine of Informed Consent in a Medical Malpractice (Medical Negligence) Case under Article 2176 of the Civil Code

In Dr. Rubi Li vs. Spouses Reynaldo and Lina Soliman, G.R. No. 165279 promulgated last June 7, 2011, the Supreme Court of the Philippines resolved an issue on the application of the common-law doctrine of informed consent in a medical malpractice (medical negligence) cases based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code.  As Justice Brion noted in his Separate Opinion, this case is of first impression in the Philippine jurisdiction, especially so since informed consent litigation is not an ordinary medical negligence case.

Incompatible Offices and the Corporate Nature of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) : The Case of [Ex] Senator Richard Gordon as Chairman of the PNRC Board

Last January 18, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc promulgated its Resolution in the case of Liban, et al. vs. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352. The Court GRANTED partial reconsideration and MODIFIED the dispositive portion of its July 15, 2009 Decision. Thus, the High Tribunal MAINTAINED its holding that respondent Gordon did not forfeit his legislative seat when he was elected as PNRC Chairman during his incumbency as Senator but DELETED the pronouncement in the Decision that the PNRC Charter, R.A. 95, as amended, is void insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation. It ruled that the constitutional issue regarding the PNRC charter was not the lis mota of the case; hence, the Court should not have passed upon it. It also declared that the PNRC is sui generis in nature; it is neither strictly a GOCC nor a private corporation. Thus, R.A. No. 95, as amended, remains valid and constitutional in its entirety.

The Hacienda Luisita Case Part II : The November 22, 2011 Supreme Court Resolution

Less than five months from the promulgation of its July 5, 2011 Decision, the Court en banc promulgated on November 22, 2011 its Resolution on the various motions for reconsideration filed in Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), G.R. No. 171101.

The Hacienda Luisita Case Part I : How the Supreme Court Decided on July 15, 2011

In its Decision in Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), G.R. No. 171101, promulgated last July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc DENIED the petition filed by HLI and AFFIRMED the resolutions of the PARC revoking HLI’s Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) and placing the subject lands under compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government.

[To read the FACTS of the case and a digest of the main opinion, please click here.]

How Midas Lost His Touch on the Arroyo TRO Issue

Last Friday, November 18, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc met to deliberate on the pending issues in the consolidated cases of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo vs. Hon. Leila M. De Lima (G.R. No. 199034) and Jose Miguel T. Arroyo vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima (G.R. No. 199046).

Pollo vs. Constantino-David : The Extent of the Right to Privacy of Government Employees

This is NOT good news for government employees.

On October 18, 2011, the Supreme Court promulgated its decision in Pollo vs.Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881. This case involved a search of an office computer assigned to the petitioner, an employee of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. IV (CSC-ROIV). The search was a consequence of an anonymous letter-complaint received by respondent CSC Chairperson alleging that the “chief of the Mamamayan muna hindi mamaya na division” of CSC-ROIV has been lawyering for public officials with pending cases in the CSC. The employee’s personal files stored in the computer, many of which were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals, were used as evidence in the administrative proceedings subsequently initiated against him. 

Pormento vs. Estrada, G.R. No. 191988, August 31, 2010 : Failure to Seize the Opportunity to Make a Definitive Ruling on the Scope of the Ineligibility of the President for Any Re-Election

In the second meeting of my Constitutional Law class last night, we discussed, among others, Constitutional Construction. One of the students raised a question on the correct interpretation of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, which provides in part that “[t]he President shall not be eligible for any re-election.” Her query: Why was Erap Estrada allowed to run again as President in the 2010 presidential elections despite the foregoing provision?

Grant of TRO to the Arroyos: November 15, 2011 Supreme Court En Banc Resolution in Arroyo vs. De Lima

Late yesterday, the Supreme COURT En Banc issued a Resolution granting EX PARTE the prayer for Temporary Restraining Order of the petitioners in the consolidated cases of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo vs. Hon. Leila M. De Lima, G.R. No. 199034 and Jose Miguel T. Arroyo vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, G.R. No. 199046.

Postscript to the Gamboa Ruling: Meaning of “Capital” in the Constitutional Provision Re the 60-40 Equity Structure of Public Utilities

The case of Wilson P. Gamboa vs. Finance Secretary Margarito Teves (G.R. No. 176579) promulgated on June 28, 2011 involves the determination of the correct meaning of the word “capital” in Section 11, Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

Section 11. No franchise . . . for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to . . . corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens; . . . The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.

Detailed Digest of Gamboa vs. Finance Secretary, G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011

WILSON P. GAMBOA vs. FINANCE SECRETARY TEVES

G.R. No. 176579, promulgated June 28, 2011

X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------X

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

This is a petition to nullify the sale of shares of stock of Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation (PTIC) by the government of the Republic of the Philippines, acting through the Inter-Agency Privatization Council (IPC), to Metro Pacific Assets Holdings, Inc. (MPAH), an affiliate of First Pacific Company Limited (First Pacific), a Hong Kong-based investment management and holding company and a shareholder of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT). 

PROPOSED RULES FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATING DISPUTES (Proposed Amendments to the Rules on Civil and Criminal Procedure)

The Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules on Civil Procedure (“Sub-Committee” for brevity) of the Supreme Court, chaired by Justice Roberto Abad, the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar Examinations, recently comes up with the PROPOSED RULES FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATING DISPUTES (“Proposed Rules” for brevity).

Maiden Post: The Supreme Court Decision on the Constitutionality of RA No. 10153 (Re the Postponement of the ARMM polls and appointment by the President of ARMM OICs)

For my very first post, I am sharing here my digest of the case of Datu Michael Abas Kida vs. Senate of the Philippines (G.R. No. 196271 and the other cases consolidated therewith) promulgated by the Supreme Court on October 18, 2011. In this hairline 8-7 decision, the Supreme Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions assailing the validity of R.A. No. 10153 for lack of merit and UPHELD the constitutionality of the said law in toto.