Cupboard: for tomorrow’s oral arguments

“Tokador” (Cupboard) by Marilou P. Deniega (prints from Equitable card)

Jurisdictional issues. Of course, every lawyer knows this: To win your case in an injunction case (that’s my shortcut-term for petition for certiorari and prohibition/ mandamus), you have to show the Court that the party you wish to enjoin has no jurisdiction/ had no jurisdiction, to do what it did/ to do what it is doing.

So….What is jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is “the power to hear and decide” according to the Court. What does that mean? You cannot just set up a table or desk in your front yard and call out to everybody that you will decide their disputes (well, even if you do, your “decisions” are not enforcible by the coercive processes of the state, i.e., your decisions cannot be enforced except voluntarily by the parties). “Jurisdiction is conferred by law”. What does that mean? Same example. Unless there is a law that has given you that power, you command nothing. For example: PAGC. As far as I know it was just created by an executive order; it’s findings are only recommendatory to the President. So, what is it? It’s one of the President’s fact-finding groups but has no real jurisdiction, the President sometimes in certain “cases” ignores its recommendations and it cannot do anything about it; it has no real jurisdiction. Well, that’s just my opinion: I’m just using it to illustrate what jurisdiction means.

In the injunction case against the Comelec, petitioner has to show that the Comelec had no authority to do what it did.

What did the Comelec do? At that time, it conducted an investigation into the Maguindanao municipal CoC’s (tallies), then found copy number 2 of the CoC’s (tallies) 21 municipalities (carbon copies used for posting), and on Friday, proceeded to canvass.

Today, that’s what it is still doing: canvassing. Right after that, they will proclaim the 12th senator.

Would you be able to get a TRO on the canvass if what you had filed was on the investigation processes?

Possibly; there’s a way of doing it. (well, the prudent thing was to have filed an amended petition; you’re allowed to do that as a matter of right before the other side answers or within the period or before the period to file answer/ comment lapses). But since that wasn’t done, you could show paragraphs in your initiatory pleading that show that the National Canvass was never dissolved, everything that the Comelec had been doing was part of the proceeding of that National Canvass even if the Comelec argued they suspended it, the results of the investigation they were doing would be used/ are being used for the canvass, it is part of the proceeding of the canvass, so you had really challenged/ are really challenging the the jurisdiction over the entire proceeding of the National Canvass. (… everybody’s welcome, this one’s on the house, it’s a case of public interest).

That’s one hurdle. If you’re able to take care of that, the next and maybe the last one is: So, why are you saying it doesn’t have jurisdiction?

If you cry “statistical improbability”, “manufactured”, “fraudulent”, the Comelec lawyers and solgen will cry: “those are matters of evidence, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.”

That’s true. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts in the sense that at tomorrow’s orals and in the entire proceeding, you’d be hard-put if you try to present evidence for the Court to hear.

Here’s a nifty move. The Rules of Court. You’d probably want to use that (i sound like a cook in an instant cooking show in the lifetyle channel, they like to say, “you’d want to sear the steak this way…you’d want to use the sweet onions, not the other kind…”)

“Still Life with Apples and Grapes” 1880, Monet (print from The Art Institute of Chicago)

 

The Rules of Court allow the Court to take judicial notice of certain facts that are of common knowledge or widely known without need of proof. Judicial notice means just that: the party does not need to present evidence for it. And there are two kinds. You might want to use section 2 (discretionary judicial notice) and section 4 (judicial admissions.)

Ask the Court to take judicial notice of the following, in accordance with Section 2, Rule 129: then enumerate those facts/ pieces of information that are of public knowledge; the other party will even be forced to stipulate on them (agree) if you present them in such a way that everybody would agree that they are of public knowledge.

For laypeople, here are the provisions:

“RULE 129 “What Need Not Be Proved

“SECTION 1.Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a) chanrobles virtua law library

“Sec. 2.Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a)

“Sec. 3.Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.

“After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here’s another nifty move. Judicial admissions. An example. a celebrated one. Remember the famous cha-cha case of Sigaw ng Bayan, where the other party cried that the Supreme Court became a “trier of facts”? That’s not entirely true because Supreme Court, in my opinion, used the judicial admissions made in open court by the representatives of the parties on how the signatures were gathered, and those admissions were of personal knowledge, and the admissions made in the pleadings, too, and the Supreme Court has the authority to do so under the following rule:

“Sec. 4.Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)”

Comelec will be there tomorrow. See where i’m getting?

But they might clam up if they read this (as I said, everybody’s welcome, it’s a case of public interest).

The Supreme Court justices will have questions. I dare anyone to clam up then.