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.