Newspeg: The Supreme Court in a Jan. 17 two-page minute resolution upheld the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the criminal complaint filed by former solgen Frank Chavez against former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al. in connection with the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) fund in 2004.
Here’s the announcement of the Supreme Court at their website:
“In a two-page minute resolution dated January 17, 2013, the Supreme Court effectively upheld the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman)’s dismissal of the criminal charges filed by former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al. in connection with the alleged misuse of Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) funds in 2004.
“In his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Chavez, among others, sought the reversal of the assailed Ombudsman rulings approving the resolution of a Department of Justice (DOJ) Panel of Investigators that recommended the dismissal of malversation charges against Arroyo for the alleged illegal transfer of P530,382,445 in OWWA Medicare Fund to the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) and of the $350,000 from the OWWA Capital Fund to several labor attachés in the Middle East during the US-Iraq crisis. (Chavez v. Arroyo, GR Nos. 203884-85, Min. Res., January 17, 2013)”
Lawyers say they’ve been pinkslipped when they get this kind of “decision”/ “resolution”– it’s usually two paragraphs, the rest of the page/ space being taken up by the title, the names of the parties, addresses, the cc’ed names again, the names of the participating justices.
A petition for review and certiorari under Rule 45 — i don’t know about you, but Rule 45 petition for review is not easy for me.
This kind of “appeal” raises only questions of law and review is not a matter of right but of “sound judicial discretion”. The following are the pertinent rules of procedure:
“Rule 45. Sec. 6. Review discretionary.—A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:
“(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or
“(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision. (4a)”