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 following are the provisions of the Tubbataha Reefs National Park Law that have been violated upon which the fines are based (computation of the fines under Sec. 20, damage to the reef, are found in the IRR’s); fines, being penal in nature, are separate from civil damages (actual damages, temperate damages, exemplary damages), costs of suit if any, administrative costs if any; the aggrieved party must expressly claim each of these or expressly make a reservation:
“Sec. 19. Unauthorized Entry, Enjoyment or Use. No person or entity shall enter, enjoy or utilize any portion of the TRNP and the resources therein for whatever purpose without prior permission from the TPAMB as herein provided.
“The TRNP shall be off-limits to navigation, except for activities that are sanctioned by the TPAMB such as, but not limited to, tourism and research. Except in emergency situations, it shall be unlawful to enter the TRNP without prior permission from the TPAMB or the PASu as herein provided. It shall also be unlawful to enter, enjoy or use for any purpose any prohibited management zone. This rule shall similarly apply to the use of vessels, gears and equipment in management zones where such are not allowed.
“Violation of this section shall be subject to imprisonment of not less than six (6) months but not more than one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00), as may be determined by the TPAMB. If the violator is a commercial fisher/fisherfolk, the penalty shall be imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more than three (3) years and a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)
“Sec. 20. Damages to the Reef. Damages to the reef shall subject the responsible person or entity to the payment of administrative fines set by the TPAMB based on current valuation standards and to the payment of the cost of restoration.
“Sec. 21. Non-payment of Conservation Fees. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to enjoy or utilize the TRNP and the resources therein without payment of conservation fees as may be imposed by the TPAMB.
“Violators of this section shall, in addition to the payment of the conservation fee, pay the administrative fine of double the amount of the conservation fee set by the TPAMB for the activity undertaken
xxx
“Sec. 30. Obstruction to Law Enforcement Officer. The boat owner, master, operator, officer or any person acting on his/her behalf, of any vessel who evades, obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the TRNP to perform his/her duty, shall be administratively fined Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). In addition, the registration, permit and/or license of the vessel including the license of the officers thereof shall be cancelled.”
( pertinent IRR provisions, for computations, in the next post)
