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
Watch The Big Story at 8:00 pm tonight, live interview by TV5 news anchor Roby Alampay on TV5- Bloomberg TV Philippines 24/7 news channel exclusive on Cignal TV Channel 250 (HD) Cable Cablelink, Channel 23 (SD) on the meaning, and the immediate and long-term implications/ repercussions of the quo warranto ouster of CJ Sereno.
perhaps, having litigated dozens of special civil actions in the Supreme Court (quo warranto is a special civil action), i might be able to help thresh out the following:
1.The decision of the Supreme Court 8 justices is UNFINISHED:
It has ancillary orders in its dispositive portion that are outside the scope of the quo warranto itself, and involves all the branches of government, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the public — implementation of which are, problematic at best. (watch the live interview), such as the following (the bag of ancillary orders) : 2.The Supreme Court 8 justices could have stated that every petition for quo warranto should be decided on a “case-to-case” basis — but it said here that quo warranto could be used against any ineligible public official, at any time, if the ground relied upon allegedly occurred before the appointment or during the appointment, on the nebulous ground of “integrity” for acts committed prior to or incident to their appointment, as follows:
According to the Supreme Court 8 Justices:
“Quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official may be availed of, provided that the requisites for the commencement thereof are present, when the subject act or omission was committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office as to render such appointment or election invalid.”
Here, under “Guidelines for the Bench,…” etc.:
It should be noted however that for nominees to the judiciary, facts on “integrity” are heard at the JBC level. Even the Supreme Court 8 justices, in the case that they cited, showed that the “integrity” criterion is determined at the JBC level.
At the very least, these are questions of fact, not of mere argumentation, which require testimonies from custodians of documents and administrative officers before which the SALNs are filed, and which, if alleged as “culpable violations of the Constitution”, should be threshed out in an evidentiary hearing like the impeachment trial.
(Removing the prescriptive period of quo warranto would cover acts committed before your appointment which would cover everything you said or uttered or had done since you were born …)
2.The legal and theoretical framework of the decision of the Supreme Court 8 (particularly on pages 132-153(which it had to utilize to sustain the quo warranto) is: The Chief Justice was a de facto Chief Justice who sat only with “color of title” – i.e., was never legal but only appeared to be legal (de facto — like a guerilla movement, it was never part of government).
This kind of theory shakes the very foundation of the Supreme Court itself from 2012, then at every en banc session and decision, and from the moment it was convened last Monday, and to this day.
The legal and theoretical framework of the decision can be found in pages 134-153 … (see sample embedded page below)
While the Supreme Court has held in a line of cases that acts of a de facto officer may not be collaterally attacked — these may be assailed directly by quo warranto and as a result of a quo warranto.
The Supreme Court 8 justices, for their own existence and the existence of the Supreme Court, might want to address the legal status of all the acts presided upon by a “de facto Chief Justice” — since now, these can be assailed directly (the only prohibition being upon a collateral attack).
3.On the SALNs, faculty members of U.P. have some familiarity with the procedure for the filing of SALNs (it is not filed directly with the HRDO but with the administrative officer of each college) and the procedure the administrative officer adopts when the faculty member is on leave for more than a year. Then Associate Prof. Sereno went on leave up to the time of her voluntary resignation in 2006 – the years for which her SALNs were asked to be submitted to the JBC. An evidentiary hearing like the impeachment trial would have heard the administrative officers of various colleges in U.P. on this procedure. There is also some familiarity with the application for limited private practice, and the procedure for this if the faculty is on leave and not reporting for work at all by virtue of such approved leave. All these procedures would have been attested to by the responsible U.P. administrative officers in an evidentiary hearing like an impeachment trial.
4. The course Law on Mass Media and Communication covers the contempt powers of the Supreme Court, which covers a line of cases on prejudicial publicity against the accused versus a free press; and a line of cases on the use of contumacious language against the Supreme Court (an example is In Re Ramon Tulfo, when he called the Supreme Court justices “sangkatutak na bobo” etc, respondent Ramon Tulfo was reprimanded and asked to pay a fine, nothing more).
In this case, the six of the eight justices of the Supreme Court themselves spoke publicly against the Chief Justice on various occasions, before the Chief Justice spoke in various forums.
The show-cause order of the Supreme Court 8 justices on the CJ for her public statements hints that she would be disbarred.
Watch the live interview tonight 8:00 pm by news anchor Roby Alampay on TV5- Bloomberg TV Philippines on Cignal TV Cignal TV Channel 250 (HD) Cable Cablelink, Channel 23 (SD).
image by TV5 – Bloomberg TV Philippines, used here non-commercially for academic purposes