tap the “play arrow” to stream apocalyptic music (if on mobile device: click “Listen in browser”)
How many votes needed to overturn the Supreme Court 8 in CJ-Sereno-case?
Result in case of a tie in the Supreme Court en banc : Schools of thought
This is one small part of the interview last night in “The Big Story” of TV5 -Bloomberg TV Philippines, anchored by Roby Alampay (see previous post): How many votes are needed to overturn the majority in Republic vs. Sereno? i hate the answer I gave but it is the answer to that particular question (hindi naman pwedeng mag-no-comment because it was based on the rules of court; hindi naman pwedeng magsinungaling…) . a tie vote affirms the status quo, the status quo last week was the Chief Justice; the status quo today is the 8 justices, a tie affirms the status quo.The answer i gave is: It is no longer one vote-to-swing but two since the status quo is now the majority decision. A tie results in affirming the status quo. The legal basis is set forth below, in green font.
In simple terms: Last week, the status quo was the Chief Justice; today the status quo is the 8. (Background: See post here dated May 11 where it was stated: “8-6 quo warranto is 1 vote shy of quo warranto being denied: 7-7 would have been status quo. Decision should be stayed for MR. 8-6 in favor of quo warranto is only 1 vote shy of quo warranto being denied: A 7-7 would have resulted in status quo. The vote is too close that the decision should be stayed for an MR.”
image credits: TV5 file photo
Now… a Motion for Reconsideration would be submitted 15 days after receipt of the decision. Again, what is now the prevailing situation or the new status quo, and what would be the result of a tie? In other words, how many votes-to-swing are needed from the majority for the MR to be GRANTED? What is the result of a tie on MR?
Supreme Court Justice Antonio succinctly discussed the rules in case of a tie in League vs. Comelec (G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, and 178056, December 21, 2009) as follows:
J. Carpio: “A.M. No. 99-1-09-SC (dated 26 January 1999): In the Matter of Clarifying the Rule in Resolving Motions for Reconsideration “The Court Resolved as follows: “A MOTION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OR RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC OR OF A DIVISION MAY BE GRANTED UPON A VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EN BANC OR OF A DIVISION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WHO ACTUALLY TOOK PART IN THE DELIBERATION OF THE MOTION. “IF THE VOTING RESULTS IN A TIE, THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DEEMED DENIED.” xxx “I. “The Rules on Tie-Vote “Section 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court expressly governs tie-votes in the en banc, thus: “SEC. 7. Procedure if opinion is equally divided. Where the court en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall again be deliberated on, and if after such deliberation no decision is reached, the original action commenced in the court shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied. (Emphasis supplied) “This provision contemplates three possible instances where the Supreme Court en banc may be equally divided in opinion or where the necessary majority in the votes cannot be had. “First, in actions instituted originally in the Supreme Court, if there is a tie-vote, the Court en banc shall deliberate again. After such re-deliberation and the Court remains equally divided, which means that no decision had been reached, the original action shall be dismissed. In such a case, the tie-vote results in the dismissal of the action without establishing any jurisprudential precedent. Xxx “Second, in cases appealed to the Supreme Court, Section 7 of Rule 56 explicitly provides that if the Court en banc is still equally divided after re-deliberation, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed. A tie-vote in cases arising under the Courts appellate jurisdiction translates into a summary affirmance of the lower courts ruling. In short, the tie-vote in the en banc cannot amend or reverse a prior majority action of a lower court, whose decision stands affirmed. “Third, on all incidental matters, which include motions for reconsideration, Section 7 of Rule 56 specifically states that if the Court en banc is evenly divided on such matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.” (J. Carpio dissenting to state that all dilatory motions should be expunged, supra).
The news anchor asked me about probabilities on the MR … the answer was based on experience with motions for reconsideration… it is an answer that i hate.
But hell (pardon my French) the Supreme Court 8 justices called the Chief Justice a de facto Chief Justice in their ponencia – what does that make of the Supreme Court from 2012 to today? The Supreme Court 8 ruled that any public official, appointed or elected, if the requisites are present, may be ousted by quo warranto for acts prior to or incident to the appointment or election (page 135 of the Supreme Court 8 decision).
Iyan ang pag-isipan nang mabuti: ang lahat ng institusyon at batas na winasak sa sinulat ng Supreme Court 8 justices. (That’s what you have to be concerned about: all the institutions and laws that were destroyed by what was written by the Supreme Court 8 justices).
The Supreme Court 8 arrogated unto itself the power of Shiva.
image credits: TV5 – Bloomberg TV Philippines, used here non-commercially for academic purposes