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.

xxx

“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)”

The phenomenal oral arguments on August 15. For the first time, the

Supreme Court of the Philippines would be asked to pass upon or exercise what the Court

calls “judicial review” over a peace (photo by www.luwaran.com used here for non-commercial purposes)

agreement (or a draft peace agreement, or a draft agreement preparatory to a peace agreement depending on your point of view).

That is: for the first time, the Supreme Court of the Philippines would be asked to exercise judicial review of an agreement (or draft agreement) between the executive branch on one hand and an armed “liberation” group, on the other hand.

The petitioner initially asked for just access to the document. Now that apparently the document has been made public (or that they have been given copies), that specific prayer has become moot and academic. Petitioner’s lawyer has made known that they are planning to amend their petition; that is, they will ask that the Supreme Court declare the agreement (or draft agreement) unconstitutional.

Many other politicians, because the campaign for the 2010 elections had started this week and the previous months, have come out on television to denounce the agreement and have threatened to file similar petitions in the Supreme Court to declare the agreement or draft unconstitutional.

(Don’t you just love elections? It’s good business again: for PR people masquerading as news anchors, for Gloria, for senator-wannabes, for presidentiable-wannabes, all at the expense of the peace negotiations , the Bangsa Moro struggle, and maybe all other liberation movements who have on-and-off peace negotiations, henceforth, your peace negotiations, joint declarations, memorandum, agreements have to passed upon by the Supreme Court, do you like that? Sorry; naiinis ako nang sinusulat ko ito.) I will humour you. This blog post will give the requirements for judicial review (i hate doing this, because you’re talking about armed conflicts and you’re bringing those negotiations on the table of the Supreme Court, it’s ridiculous, but let’s humour you. Requirements.)

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court en banc on August 15.

Requirements. Hurdles. The hoops.

(Assuming the parties have amended and by that time others have filed Motions to Intervene or similar petitions to question the constitutionality of the agreement or draft):

Ripeness. Or ripeness for judicial review or ripeness for adjudication.

The Court has time and again laid down the rule that it will refrain from exercising judicial review :

1)“because of the danger of exercising the function in view of the possible consequences”;

2)“comparative finality of those consequences”,

3)“ consideration given to the judgment of the other repositories of constitutional power” (or the other branches of government); “necessity to keep within its power”;

4)“inherent limitations of the judicial process, its largely negative character, and its limited resources for enforcement” etc.

Ripeness. Petitioner has to demonstrate that the matter is ripe for adjudication. Has the agreement been signed?… Petitioner will say, no, your Honor but it has been initialled…. Do those initials mean that it has been signed? ….Your Honor, according to the MILF, the agreement is a done deal, it’s in their website….. Where is the MILF, are you going to present them? ….No, your Honor, we will just rely on their website and ask the Court to take judicial notice of their pronouncement….. Are we bound by their pronouncement as to the status of this agreement, aren’t they an armed group operating outside of our laws? ……We are not bound, your Honor….. So what is the status of this agreement? ….. It’s an initialled agreement.

Let’s ask the solgen. What is the status of this agreement? …. It’s a draft, your Honor.

Where’s the final agreement?

None, your Honor.

Petitioner, where’s the final agreement?

Okay. Both of you. You come back here with a final agreement. Then we’ll see.

But your Honor, it’s unconstitutional!! Very unconstitutional!!! Unconstitutional to the high heavens!!!

What is?

The agreement that was initialled and being negotiated.

Then….. are you asking us to pass upon the constitutionality of the peace negotiations itself?

(i will stop here na ha. And we haven’t even traversed the nature of the Commander-in-Chief powers; calling out the armed forces to quell rebellion includes negotiations for the disposition of those armed forces and negotiations with rebel groups. You are asking the Supreme Court to strike those down. Let’s just shout during the oral arguments, your Honor, she’s a fake president anyway! Why are we talking about Commander-in-Chief powers? Let’s chant. I will stop here na. we haven’t even gone into the “status in law” of any peace agreement between the government and a “national liberation movement”: “Characterize the problem”, as Dean Merlin Magallona would say, “What is the characterization of the problem?”)

Tag: judicial review

Pinkslipped

Here’s the announcement of the Supreme Court at their website:

xxx

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:

“(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)”

The Impending Judicial Review of the GRP-MILF MOA on Ancestral Domain: Requirements

Here’s the announcement of the Supreme Court at their website:

xxx

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:

“(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)”

click any social media icon below to share

click any social media icon below to share