DAYEdalera
Friday, September 19, 2008
Quiz Online for BPS/BPAG students
To make up for the midterm exams you can answer the following questions, for an incentive:
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
Answer at the comment bar of the blogger site. Answers submitted in Multiply will not be given credit.
Your grade generous Ma'am Daye will only be posting correct answers in the comment bar, or at least answers that could qualify as bar exam answers. See you Saturday.
:D
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
Answer at the comment bar of the blogger site. Answers submitted in Multiply will not be given credit.
Your grade generous Ma'am Daye will only be posting correct answers in the comment bar, or at least answers that could qualify as bar exam answers. See you Saturday.
:D
.JPG)
88 Comments:
mam daye kelan po ung deadline n2?
DEADLINE: Saturday - September 27, 2008.
thanks po s reply mam
1. CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Secretary filed a bribery complaint against J. Relles, Will it Prosper?
No. The action will not prosper.
DOJ Secretary has no legal personality to file the complaint against Justice Tabio. It is the person who has personal knowledge of the bribery may file the complaint for bribery against Justice Tabio, in this case, it is Justice Relles is the person who have legal personality to file the complaint, or upon anonymous complaint, or by Motu proprio complaint to be filed by the Supreme Court.
This is inline with Section 6, article VIII of the Philippine Constitution which states, “The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.”. In this connection, Section 1, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that, “for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
The complaint for bribery in this case falls within the classification of charges provided in Sections 7 and 8, Rule VIII of said Rules of Court, quoted as follows:
“SEC. 7. Classification of charges.—Administrative charges are classified as serious, less serious, or light.
SEC. 8. Serious charges.—Serious charges include:
1. Bribery, direct or indirect;
xxx”
Therefore, the bribery complaint filed by the DOJ Secretary will not prosper pursuant to the above cited constitutional provision and rules.
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Criminal/Administrative case be filed?
No. The DOJ cannot file directly the criminal case and an administrative action should commence first prior to the filing of the criminal action. The administrative case should be filed with the Supreme Court.
Under the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the rules on the prohibition against forum shopping, and the above cited constitutional provision and rules, the DOJ cannot directly file the criminal case for bribery against Justice Tabio. The DOJ Secretary should have first exhaust all the available administrative remedies before resorting to file a criminal complaint against Justice Tabio. The Supreme Court in its administrative function is the appropriate agency having jurisdiction, supervision and control over Justice Tabio, hence, the administrative case should be filed thereat.
2. The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate’s oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
Yes. The case will prosper.
The refusal of Sec. Teri to attend the Senate oversight hearing despite the summoned issued by that body my cite him for contempt and at the same time be complained/charged for Disobedience to summons of Congress pursuant to Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code, quoted as follows:
“Art.150. Disobedience to Summons Issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commission, its committees, subcommittees or divisions.- The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National assembly (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commission and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official. (As amended by Com. Act No.52)”.
Any of this acts may also constitute contempt of the Congress and could be punished as such independent of the criminal prosecution as decided in the case of Lopez vs. De los Reyes, 55 Phil. 170.
Said power must be considered implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power or necessary to effectuate said power as mentioned in the case of Arnault vs. Balagtas, O.G. 4017.
Therefore, the Senate by filing a complaint against Sec. Teri pursuant to Article 150 of the RPC and at the same time citing him for contempt by reason of said refusal will prosper.
MY ONLINE QUIZ QUESTION & ANSWER:
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
= No. The case filed for bribery filed by DOJ against J. Relles will not prosper.
= It is provided for in our constitution that the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all lower courts and personnel thereof (Sec. 6, Art. VIII)
= Anent thereto, the ruling of the court in Maceda vs. Vasquez(221 Scra 464) states that where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the case must be referred to the S.C for determination whether said judge or court employees had acted within the scope of their administrative duties
= In the given case, the bribery case filed by DOJ against J. Relles arises from the performance of his administrative duties which is issuing a TRO against a huge water company which was done in consideration of 5 million pesos.
= Therefore, the case must be referred to the Supreme court in view of its administrative supervision over J. Relles, a member of CA
> Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
= In view of the Supreme Court's power of administrative supervision over all court and its personnel, an admin. case, which ruling is determinative to the resolution of the criminal case, must be first resolved before instituting a criminal action.
= The admin case must be filed in the S.C since it is mandated to have administrative supervision over lower courts and its personnel.
= After a decision in the admin case is rendered by the SC, a criminal complaint for bribery may now be filed in the Sandiganbayan since the criminal complaint which is bribery against a public official is within the jurisdiction of the aforementioned court.
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
= No, The case against Sec teri will not prosper. The constitution provides that the power of inquiry of Congress, particularly the Senate in the case at bar, in view of its oversight function has no force of mandatory attendance against the heads of the dept. summoned therefor,as compared to its power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation.
= Likewise, as held in Senate vs. Ermita, while attendance was meant to be discretionary in the quetion hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation. In the given case, Senate is in the performance of its oversight function and therefore, they cannot compel Sec. Teri to attend the hearing under the pain of contempt.Therefore, the criminal case for violation of Art. 150 of RPC against Sec. Teri must be dismissed.
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
= No. The case filed for bribery filed by DOJ against J. Relles will not prosper.
= It is provided for in our constitution that the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all lower courts and personnel thereof (Sec. 6, Art. VIII)
= Anent thereto, the ruling of the court in Maceda vs. Vasquez(221 Scra 464) states that where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the case must be referred to the S.C for determination whether said judge or court employees had acted within the scope of their administrative duties
= In the given case, the bribery case filed by DOJ against J. Relles arises from the performance of his administrative duties which is issuing a TRO against a huge water company which was done in consideration of 5 million pesos.
= Therefore, the case must be referred to the Supreme court in view of its administrative supervision over J. Relles, a member of CA
> Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
= In view of the Supreme Court's power of administrative supervision over all court and its personnel, an admin. case, which ruling is determinative to the resolution of the criminal case, must be first resolved before instituting a criminal action.
= The admin case must be filed in the S.C since it is mandated to have administrative supervision over lower courts and its personnel.
= After a decision in the admin case is rendered by the SC, a criminal complaint for bribery may now be filed in the Sandiganbayan since the criminal complaint which is bribery against a public official is within the jurisdiction of the aforementioned court.
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
= No, The case against Sec teri will not prosper. The constitution provides that the power of inquiry of Congress, particularly the Senate in the case at bar, in view of its oversight function has no force of mandatory attendance against the heads of the dept. summoned therefor,as compared to its power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation.
= Likewise, as held in Senate vs. Ermita, while attendance was meant to be discretionary in the quetion hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation. In the given case, Senate is in the performance of its oversight function and therefore, they cannot compel Sec. Teri to attend the hearing under the pain of contempt.Therefore, the criminal case for violation of Art. 150 of RPC against Sec. Teri must be dismissed.
1. The case filed by the DOJ against CA Justice Relles will NOT prosper because under the Ombudsman Act the prosecutorial function of action against public officers are vested on the Ombudsman. What the DOJ can do is to recommend the filing of action against the CA Justice with the special prosecutors of the Ombudsman. An action filed by a public prosecutor under the authority of the DOJ Secretary is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action. However, for a complaint of bribery to prosper, the following elements should be present:
a. That the offender be a public officer within the scope of Article 203;
b. That the offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another.
c. That such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present received by the public officer:
1. With a view to committing sorne crime
2. In consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust or,
3. To refrain from doing something which his official duty so do.
d. That the act with the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties.
As previously referred to, only the Ombudsman can file a case of bribery against the CA Justice and the institution of criminal action does not require a prior institution of an administrative action because of the reason that the crime of bribery is punishable under the Revised Penal Code and is governed by the same which as a rule does not require an institution of separate action provided the elements of felony are present.
The criminal action can be instituted in the Sandigan Bayan which under the law has the authority to take notice of criminal actions filed against public officers.
2. The case against Sec. Teri for Disobedience to the Summons of Congress WILL prosper because the law on the article 150 of Revised Penal Code supplies that a person refusing without legal excuse to obey summons of the Congress, its special or standing committees and subcommittee, the Constitutional Commission and its committees, subcommittees or divisions, or by a commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses MAY BE PUNISHED BY A PENALTY OF ARESTO MAYOR OR A FINE RANGING FROM P200-1000 OR BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
If ever that Sec. Teri will invoke the executive privilege since he is a cabinet secretary, that won’t serve as a legal base because not attending to the hearing at all is different from answering to the questions which concerns national security.
Answer:
1. No, the bribery complaint of DOJ Sec. against CA Justice Relles will not prosper for the reasons that it is stated under the ombudsman act that only the ombudsman has the power of prosecutorial functions of actions against public officials or officers. The DOJ Secretary’s concern is only delimited in recommending filing action against CA Justice Relles with the special prosecutor of the ombudsman. When a public prosecutor under the authority of the secretary of DOJ filed an action, his action will likewise denied or dismissed due to the insufficiency of the cause of action.
On the other hand, the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines provides the elements of bribery which in essence determines whether a given complaint will prosper or not. In the case of Relles, one of the elements of bribery is present, that’s why definitely the case will prosper if the allegation will proven.
Elements of bribery:
• That the offender be a public officer within the scope of Art. 203
• That the offender accepts an offer or a promise or receive a gift or present by himself or through another;
• That such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the public officer
a. with a view to committing sworn crime; or
b. in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust; or
c. To refrain from doing something which it his official duty to do so.
• That the act with the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties.
It is also stated under the RVC a rule that provides not to institutionalize a separate action whether criminal or administrative action considering the elements of bribery is present in the case. Therefore, both will prosper if they are filed together.
Criminal cases against public officials or officers like bribery, graft and corruption, treason, etc. are all filed in the special court which is the SANDIGANBAYAN which under the law has the sole power to litigate public officers charged or accused of criminal contempt.
2. Yes, the law provides that a person refusing without legal excuse, to obey summons of the congress, its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the constitutional commission or its committees chairman or member authorized to summon witness may be punished by a penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200-1000 pesos.
Sec. Teri as under the executive branch may not invoke his executive privilege as it is far in violating Article 150 of the RVC because executive privilege only immunes executive member from answering question relating to national security, etc.
Josephine C. Lucero
Bps 4-2 IR
1. yes the case will prosper;
criminal case should first be filed to determine if the suspect is guilty or not and if he/she is proven guilty administrative case should follow;
it may be filed in sandiganbayan and ombudsman
2. the case will not prosper because sec. teri is not summoned by the senate as a witness but they only summoned him for inquiry purposes.
this is my answer po.
1. A) No, the case filed by DOJ against CA Justice Tabio will not prosper because DOJ has no right over such cases. it cannot file a criminal case to a judge of Special Courts like Court of Appeals unless,of course, it is the offended party. it can only formulate an investigating panel to investigate the alleged bribery act and summoned the CA judge to appear before it and thereafter the investigation process, it may submit recommendation if it is deemed proper to file a criminal case.
B) DOJ cannot file directly the criminal case,as what I've said earlier, it may formulate an investigating panel. an administrative action must commence prior to the filing of a criminal action because according to Rule 140 of Rules of Court (Discipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Justices of Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan), the proceedings for the discipline of judges shall be instituted motu propio by Supreme Court, upon verified complaint or upon an anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity.
C) the only court where an administrative or a criminal case can be filed against a Court of Appeals Justice is the Supreme Court. As stated in Article 8 Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution , ... The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. they can act motu propio over such cases. besides, logically speaking, Court of Appeals being the secong highest court in the land must be tried only, when disciplining the judges, by the highest court therein.
2) No, the case filed against SSS Chief Teri by the Senate will not prosper because of numerous reasons:
First, Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code (Disobedience to Summons issued by the National Assembly etc.) is only applicable to those who are summoned to attend as WITNESS and a person's right to self incrimination or the right not to testify against one's self shall be respected.
Second, even if he is not a witness , if there is legal excuse he is still cannot be dealt with criminal action.
Lastly because of Separation of Powers. in the similar case Neri vs. Senate, the Honorable Supreme Court recognized that though we are in the "search for truth", the Separation of Powers shall be respected- Legislature enacts law, Judiciary interprets it and Executive implements it. the Court's mandate is to preserve the principle that these 3 branches are considered separate, co-equal, coordinate and supreme with their own respective sphere. SC also said that these should be preserved at all times to keep the political branches of government wihtin the constitutional bounds, EVEN IF IT BE IN THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.
It seems as if that the Senate used its power "in aid of legislation" EXCESSIVELY to cite him in contempt and simultaneously file a criminal case thereafter.
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
ANSWER:
No. The Action of the DOJ Secretary will not prosper for the reason that he has no legal personality to file the complaint against Justice Tabio. The person who shall file the complaint for bribery against Justice Tabio shall be Justice Relles since he is the one who accused Justice Tabio and therefore has knowledge on the issue.
As stated on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, section 6, article VIII, the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. In relation, section 1, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court states that, “ for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandigan Bayan may be instituted motu propio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Pursuant to the above cited constitutional provision and rules, it is therefore conclude that the bribery complaint filed by the DOJ Secretary will not prosper.
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
No. The DOJ cannot file the criminal case directly and an administrative action be commenced first prior to the filing of the criminal action. The said Administrative Case shall be filed in the Supreme Court. This is pursuant to the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the rules on the prohibition against forum shopping and the above cited constitutional provision and rules which affirms that the DOJ cannot directly file Justice Tabio a bribery case. The DOJ Secretary should exhaust first all the existing administrative remedies before resorting to file a criminal complaint against Justice Tabio. The administrative case shall be filed at the Supreme Court since it is the appropriate agency to file for and knowing its Administrative function in having jurisdiction,supervision, and control over Justice Tabio.
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
Yes, the case will prosper. Secretary Teri’s refusal to attend the hearing despite the summoned maybe cited or held liable for contempt and may also be charged for Disobedience to summons of Congress in pursuant to Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that, “The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.”
In addition to the above provision, any of this acts may also be constitute contempt of the Congress and could be punished as such independent of the criminal prosecution as decided in the case of Lopez vs. Delos Reyes, 55 Phil. 170. Further, this said power must be considered implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power or necessary to effectuate said power as mentioned in the case of Arnault vs. Balagtas, O.G.4017.
The complaint of the Senate citing Secretary Teri in contempt and violation of article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress will therefore prosper.
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
ANSWER:
No. The Action of the DOJ Secretary will not prosper for the reason that he has no legal personality to file the complaint against Justice Tabio. The person who shall file the complaint for bribery against Justice Tabio shall be Justice Relles since he is the one who accused Justice Tabio and therefore has knowledge on the issue.
As stated on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, section 6, article VIII, the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. In relation, section 1, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court states that, “ for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandigan Bayan may be instituted motu propio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Pursuant to the above cited constitutional provision and rules, it is therefore conclude that the bribery complaint filed by the DOJ Secretary will not prosper.
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
No. The DOJ cannot file the criminal case directly and an administrative action be commenced first prior to the filing of the criminal action. The said Administrative Case shall be filed in the Supreme Court. This is pursuant to the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the rules on the prohibition against forum shopping and the above cited constitutional provision and rules which affirms that the DOJ cannot directly file Justice Tabio a bribery case. The DOJ Secretary should exhaust first all the existing administrative remedies before resorting to file a criminal complaint against Justice Tabio. The administrative case shall be filed at the Supreme Court since it is the appropriate agency to file for and knowing its Administrative function in having jurisdiction,supervision, and control over Justice Tabio.
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
Yes, the case will prosper. Secretary Teri’s refusal to attend the hearing despite the summoned maybe cited or held liable for contempt and may also be charged for Disobedience to summons of Congress in pursuant to Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that, “The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.”
In addition to the above provision, any of this acts may also be constitute contempt of the Congress and could be punished as such independent of the criminal prosecution as decided in the case of Lopez vs. Delos Reyes, 55 Phil. 170. Further, this said power must be considered implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power or necessary to effectuate said power as mentioned in the case of Arnault vs. Balagtas, O.G.4017.
The complaint of the Senate citing Secretary Teri in contempt and violation of article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress will therefore prosper.
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
No, it will not prosper because Justice Relles is the person who has legal personality to file the complaint of bribery against Justice Tabio; or upon:
Sec.6, Art.8 of the Philippine Constitution
“The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof”.
Sec.1, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court
“For the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu propio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantive said allegations, or upon an anonymous compliant, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct”.
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
No, the DOJ cannot file directly the criminal case and an administrative action should commence first prior to the filing of the criminal action. The administrative case should be filed with the Supreme Court.
Under the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the rules on the provision against forum shopping, and the above cited constitutional provision and rules, the DOJ cannot directly file the criminal case for bribery against Justice Tabio. The DOJ Sec. should have first exhaust all the available administrative remedies before resorting to file a criminal camplaint against Justice Tabio. The Supreme Court in its administrative function is the appropriate agency having jurisdiction, supervision and control over Justice Tabio, hence, the administrative case should be filed thereat.
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
Yes, the case will prosper.
Art.150 of the Revised Penal Code
”Disobedience to Summons Issued by the National Assembly, its commodities or subcommodities, by the Constitutional Commission, its commodities, subcommodities or divisions. – The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fines and imprisonment, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the national Assembly (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commission, its commodities, subcommodities or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
No, it will not prosper because Justice Relles is the person who has legal personality to file the complaint of bribery against Justice Tabio; or upon:
Sec.6, Art.8 of the Philippine Constitution
“The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof”.
Sec.1, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court
“For the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu propio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantive said allegations, or upon an anonymous compliant, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct”.
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
No, the DOJ cannot file directly the criminal case and an administrative action should commence first prior to the filing of the criminal action. The administrative case should be filed with the Supreme Court.
Under the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the rules on the provision against forum shopping, and the above cited constitutional provision and rules, the DOJ cannot directly file the criminal case for bribery against Justice Tabio. The DOJ Sec. should have first exhaust all the available administrative remedies before resorting to file a criminal camplaint against Justice Tabio. The Supreme Court in its administrative function is the appropriate agency having jurisdiction, supervision and control over Justice Tabio, hence, the administrative case should be filed thereat.
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
Yes, the case will prosper.
Art.150 of the Revised Penal Code
”Disobedience to Summons Issued by the National Assembly, its commodities or subcommodities, by the Constitutional Commission, its commodities, subcommodities or divisions. – The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fines and imprisonment, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the national Assembly (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commission, its commodities, subcommodities or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
1. I think for me, the action will not prosper because the DOJ secretary has no legal personality to file the complaint against Justice Tabio.It is the person who has personal knowledge of the bribery may file the complaint in this case Justice Relles is the one who can file the complaint.Therefore, the bribery complaint filed by the DOJ Secretary will not prosper.
-I think no, the DOJ cannot file directly the criminal case and administrative actionmaybe it should commence first prior to the filling of the criminal action.It should be filed with Supreme Court they have its administrative function is the appropriate agency having jurisdiction,supervision and control over Justice Tabio.
BRIBERY- it is accepting gifts bestowed by a private person with the object of inducing him to give special consideration to the interests of the honor.
2.Yes, the case will prosper because Sec.Teri pursuant to Art.150 of the RPC and at the same time citing him for contempt by reason of said refusal.Sec.Teri refused to attend the Senate oversight hearing.
1. No..The action will not prosper..
Bribery is accepting gifts bestowed by a private person with the object of inducing him to give special consideration to the interests of the donor.
DOJ Secretary has no legal personality to file such action against Justice Tabio.The person who has personal involvement of bribery may file the complaint for bribery against Justice Tabio.,in this case it is Justice Relles who have the legal personality to file an action or complaint.
No. The DOJ can't file directly the criminal case and an administrative action should commence prior to the filing of the criminal action.The administrative case should be filed within the Supreme Court.
2.YES..the case will prosper.
The refusal of Sec.Teri to attend the Senate inquiry despite the summoned issued by that body may cite him for contempt and at the same be charged for Disobedience to summons of Congress pursuant to Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code.
Jan Richard A. Renes BPS IV-2
1. In this situation, the case shall not prosper due to lack of power of the DOJ to file such actions. Citing Quiñones vs. Lopez it reads - "Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Courts of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers."
Therefore, no case shall prosper unless the Supreme Court file the Administrative action against CA Justice Telles.
On the follow up question, the case should be administrative in nature with the Supreme Court as the only body who has jurisdiction over the accused (citing the above citation).
2. In this situation, Secretary Teri can be held liable under Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines it reads - Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
Since in the situation, Sec. Teri did not have any excuse as to why he did not attend the the inquiry, he is therefore liable under the said provision.
In addition, Sec. Teri cannot use, in his defense the principle of executive privilege since he did not even use it as an excuse not to attend the hearing in the first place. Therefore, his mere refusal without any justification, can be held against him under Art. 150 of the RPC.
angela 4-3
(Question #1)
●Yes, the case of bribery against CA Justice Telles will prosper.
Whereas, by accepting 5m of Judge Telles and issuing the TRO to which it requires the approval of the office. It serves as an evidence that he committed the Prohibited Acts and Transaction of any Public Official and employees, in which judges are included in the subject of the law.
Based on:
a.) Section 7(a) of Republic Act 6713, which is the Prohibited Acts and Transaction of any Public Official and Employees;
Paragraph (a), states that:
Financial and material interest.- Public officials and employees shall not directly or indirectly, have any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.
b.) The act of “receiving gift” is also an offense under Section
3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and under PD 46.
(2nd Question)
● Based on Liabilities of Legal Ethics by Ruben Agpalo. It states that:
As a general rule that a judge is not liable administratively, civlly, or criminally when he acts within his legal powers and jurisdiction. He may not held liable for every erroneous order or decision he renders. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. He may only be held accountable where his error is gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, or is incurred with evident bad faith.
However, exception to the rule, a judge is not above the law for this reason, he may held criminally, civilly or administratively liable for malfeasance or misfeasance in office.
Thus, it says we can file a criminal complaint of bribery against CA Justice Telles directly.
(3rd Question)
●In the filling of the criminal case of bribery, the Section 11, Article 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution shall govern on this matter.
Where,
“ The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.”
Based on Section 1 Rule 140, Rules of Court, stated that:
“Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity.”
2nd SITUATION
(1ST Question)
It depends, when the refusal of Sec. Teri to attend the hearing is with a legal and valid excused, he may not be held liable for contempt and violation of Art. 150 of the Revise Penal Code.
But, when the refusal to attend the hearing is without any legal and valid excused, the case for contempt and Art. 150 of the Revise Penal Code will prosper.
Because he violated the following provisions:
a) Article XI – Accountability of Public Officers
SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
b) Republic Act 6713, Section 4, states that:
Norms of Conduct of Public Official and Employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties
Paragraph (e) – Responsiveness to the Public. – Public officials and employees prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or when required by the public interest, public officials and employees shall provide information of their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing country, especially in the depressed rural and urban areas.
Whereas, the norm and conduct of a public official must be in accordance with the law, otherwise, the law has the power to sue or held accountable any public officials on the violation of the Code of Ethics of Public Officer and the Constitution.
provided the supreme court wont be changing its ruling or lay guidelines on the appearnces of officials before any investigating body, the case wont prosper.. all executive heads and certain pulic officials are covered and protected by th eo 464 supported the executive. though seems like concealment of the truth, an official appearing before the congress can invoke the said rulings. hence, it is discretionary. the power to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation is co-extensive with the power to legislate. However, not all inquiries conducted pursuant to the oversight functions of Congress are considered in aid of legislation- another contention the accused may invoke. the high court declared some provisions of the eo as unconstitutional as it hinders the right of the congress to gather information. however, the high tribunal declared that the presidents power to ban officail froma ppearing on question hour is constitutional. therefore, any official who disobeys the congress request is merely following the "chain of command"
provided the supreme court wont be changing its ruling or lay guidelines on the appearnces of officials before any investigating body, the case wont prosper.. all executive heads and certain pulic officials are covered and protected by th eo 464 supported by the executive. though seems like concealment of the truth, an official appearing before the congress can invoke the said rulings. hence, it is discretionary. the power to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation is co-extensive with the power to legislate. However, not all inquiries conducted pursuant to the oversight functions of Congress are considered in aid of legislation- another contention the accused may invoke. the high court declared some provisions of the eo as unconstitutional as it hinders the right of the congress to gather information. however, the high tribunal declared that the presidents power to ban officail from appearing on question hour is constitutional. therefore, any official who disobeys the congress request is merely following the "chain of command"
this is my answer po.
1. A) No, the case filed by DOJ against CA Justice Relles will not prosper because DOJ has no right over such cases. it cannot file a criminal case to a judge of Special Courts like Court of Appeals unless,of course, it is the offended party. it can only formulate an investigating panel to investigate the alleged bribery act and summoned the CA judge to appear before it and thereafter the investigation process, it may submit recommendation if it is deemed proper to file a criminal case.
B) DOJ cannot file directly the criminal case,as what I've said earlier, it may formulate an investigating panel. an administrative action must commence prior to the filing of a criminal action because according to Rule 140 of Rules of Court (Discipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Justices of Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan), the proceedings for the discipline of judges shall be instituted motu propio by Supreme Court, upon verified complaint or upon an anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity.
C) the only court where an administrative or a criminal case can be filed against a Court of Appeals Justice is the Supreme Court. As stated in Article 8 Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution , ... The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. they can act motu propio over such cases. besides, logically speaking, Court of Appeals being the secong highest court in the land must be tried only, when disciplining the judges, by the highest court therein.
2) No, the case filed against SSS Chief Teri by the Senate will not prosper because of numerous reasons:
First, Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code (Disobedience to Summons issued by the National Assembly etc.) is only applicable to those who are summoned to attend as WITNESS and a person's right to self incrimination or the right not to testify against one's self shall be respected.
Second, even if he is not a witness , if there is legal excuse he is still cannot be dealt with criminal action.
Lastly because of Separation of Powers. in the similar case Neri vs. Senate, the Honorable Supreme Court recognized that though we are in the "search for truth", the Separation of Powers shall be respected- Legislature enacts law, Judiciary interprets it and Executive implements it. the Court's mandate is to preserve the principle that these 3 branches are considered separate, co-equal, coordinate and supreme with their own respective sphere. SC also said that these should be preserved at all times to keep the political branches of government wihtin the constitutional bounds, EVEN IF IT BE IN THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.
It seems as if that the Senate used its power "in aid of legislation" EXCESSIVELY to cite him in contempt and simultaneously file a criminal case thereafter.
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
Answer:
The bribery complaint filed against CA Justice Relles will prosper provided that administrative action filed to the Supreme Court be commenced first before filing the criminal action. Bribery, direct or indirect; is administratively liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC since the offense charged arose from the judge's performance of his official duties, which is under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act.
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
Answer:
The criminal case filed against Secretary for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress will not prosper provided that Sections 21 and 22, while closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress oversight function. And that the Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings.
Attendance was meant to be discretionary in the question hour and in inquiries in aid of legislation, under which anybody for that matter, may be summoned and if he refuses, he can be held in contempt of the Congress.
Therefore Secretary is not liable for violation of Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code and he is not compelled to attend the said oversight hearing of the Senate for he is summoned for Question Hour.
answers to the quiz...
1. yes, the complaint will prosper.
yes, a criminal case should be filed first.
the case should be filed in the sandiganbayan or in the office of the ombudsman.
2. no, because according to article 150 of the rpc, the penalty shall be imposed to those summoned as witnesses not for those who are summoned for inquiry. in which the case of sec. teri is the latter.
1. CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Relles, will it prosper?
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
Yes, the case will prosper if it was proven that CA Justice Relles accepted 5 M. The criminal charge of bribery.
I think a criminal case can be filed directly to CA Justice Relles.
Criminal/Administrative case can be filed in the Supreme Court because it has the jurisdiction to discipline erring judges and justices.
Section 1 of Rule 140 of the Court:
Proceeding for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandigan Bayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standard of conduct prescribed for judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Philippine Court of Appeals Justices are under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, and may be disciplined by disbarment or dismissed from service , under the Revised Rules of Court (1997 Code of Civil Procedure). But the Supreme Court can refer it to Department of Justice for investigation and appropriate action.
2. The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate’s oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
Yes, the case will prosper. Senate can filed a criminal case for violation of
Art.150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress and cite him in contempt.
According to Art.150 of RPC:
Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees or divisions. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the constitutional commissions and its committees and subcommittees, or division or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
In the case of Sec. Teri, he refused to attend the hearing before the Senate asked him series of questions. Executive privilege must be invoked after the question is asked by the Legislative Committee, not before. Another is that he was given right to due process, which means that a witness must be given “fair notice” of the subject of the legislative inquiry. Fair notice is important because the witness as in the case of Sec. Teri may be cited in contempt, and even detained, if he refuses or fails to answer or attend hearings. But still Sec.Teri was required to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt despite for his failure to appear. To file contempt, according to Section 18, on contempt, of Rules of Procedure Provides:
The committee, by a vote of a majority of all its members, may punish for contempt any witness before it who disobeys any order of the committee or refuses to be sworn or to testify or to answer a proper question by the committee or any of its members, or testifying, testifies falsely or evasively. A contempt of the committee shall be deemed a contempt of the Senate. Such witness may be ordered by the committee to be detained in such place as it may designate under the custody of the Sergeant-At-Arms until he agrees to produce the required documents, or to be sworn or to testify or otherwise purge himself of that contempt.
The witness must be sufficiently informed of the nature of the inquiry so the witness can reasonably prepare for possible questions of the legislative committee. To avoid doubts on whether there is a fair notice, the witness must be given in advance the questions pertaining to the basic nature of the inquiry. From these advance questions, the witness can infer other follow up or relevant questions that the legislative committee may ask in the course of the inquiry. Because of this, Sec.Teri has no valid reasons for not attending the hearing.
It is the power of Congress to summon executive officials in congressional inquiries. In this case, Sec.Teri was summoned by the Senate that requires his appearance in aid of legislation under Art. VI, Sec. 21 of the Constitution. Therefore the appearance is mandatory. The Congress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear in such inquiry unless a valid claim of privilege is subsequently made, either by the President herself or by the Executive Secretary. The privilege should convince the Senate that the issue, or issue on hand constitute a state secret, part of an internal cabinet meeting, part of a foreign treaty or an issue of national security.
In this case, that Sec. Teri refused to attend hearing, he is legally and constitutionally held liable for violating Art.150 of RPC. The Senate should cite him in contempt, order his arrest, ready his detention cell inside the Senate and file criminal and other appropriate charges for those who will snub the hearing of Senate.
Joy Marie Limbo
BPS IV-2
1. Yes, it will prosper, the bribery complaint by DOJ Sec. against J. Telles
According to Art. 210. Of Revised Penal code Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
Administrative action is commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action.
The case should be filed at the Supreme Court. According to Sec. 6, Art. VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution also provides that “the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
Thus, under Sec. 11, the Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts
2. Yes, Sec. Teri can contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC.
Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
Sec. Teri violate this article because on the given facts Teri refused to attend the hearing and unable to give any legal reason.
Joy Marie Limbo
BPS IV-2
Marinelle O. Magsino
BPS IV-2
1. By accepting 5 million in issuing a TRO against a huge water company the bribery complaint against J. Telles will prosper. As stated to Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code:
Bribery defined as - “Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.”
Prior to the filing of the criminal action, the DOJ can commence administrative action by the Supreme Court.
Art. VII, Sec. 6, the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision overall courts and the personnel thereof.
Thus, under Sec. 11 , the Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
2. Yes, the case against Sec. Teri will prosper, It was clearly stated on Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code:
Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
Sec. Teri as one of the person who is responsible in answering any legal inquiries who issued the policies governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings and refused to attend it with no legal reason, definitely disobey to summon issued by the senate.
1.
a). Yes, the case may prosper.
If the Supreme Court proved that bribery has been committed by CA Justice Relles and the case was eventually referred to the DOJ for appropriate action, the DOJ can filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles.
… In A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, amendment to Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, Discipline of Judges and Justices:
SEC. 1 – Proceedings for the discipline of judges xxx justices of the CA xxx maybe instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person xxx
SEC. 8 – Serious charges includes: BRIBERY, direct or indirect; Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Law; Gross misconduct constituting violations of the code of Judicial Conduct.
If in the SC the proceedings for the discipline of justices of CA has been instituted and the person accused has been found guilty of the charges, but there are still some issues to be resolved, the SC may refer the case to the DOJ for appropriate action…
… in GSIS vs Meralco, after the SC declared that Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. is guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a justice of the Court of Appeals and is suspended for 2 months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty; his charges against Francis De Borja for attempted bribery of a member of the Judiciary was referred to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.
b). The DOJ can file criminal case directly, since the case has already been tested in the SC. And Bribery is under the RPC, Crimes Committed by Public Officers. DOJ can file directly a criminal case against J. Telles
c). The criminal case should be filed in the Supreme Court.
2. The case may or may not prosper. It depends on whether Sec. Teri had not, even once, attended any of the committee hearings.
If Sec. Teri had never attended any of the hearings the case may prosper with the following reasons:
a). Since Sec. Teri is the head of his Department and the Senate has summoned him to inquire about the policies he issued, the senate may invoke Sec. 21 and 22 of Article VI, power of legislative inquiry and investigation… Sec. 21 and 22 states that:
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
SECTION 22. The heads of department may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, or as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the state or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.
Sec. 21 relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, its aim is to elicit information that may be used for legislation; Sec 22 pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of congress’ oversight function.
b). The case may prosper invoking Art. 150 of the RPC which states that a penalty of both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person, who having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before National Assembly, Congress xxx refuses without legal excuse, to obey such summons or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their function.
However, if Sec. Teri had once attended a hearing but failed to attend other hearings and invoked an executive privilege, the case may not prosper.
Sec. Teri may invoke executive privilege depending on its type. It could be regarding state secrets; identity of government informers; information related to pending investigation; presidential communications; and deliberative process.
The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the constitution to the President.
Sec. Teri may invoke rulings in Senate vs Ermita:
“ … when congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief Executive, such department heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty.”
Sec. Teri can also site the SC rulings in Neri vs Senate Committee:
“… Respondent Committees further contend that the grant of petitioner’s claim of executive privilege violates the constitutional provisions on right of the people to information on matters of public concern. We might have agreed with such contention IF petitioner Did Not appear before them at all. But petitioner made himself available top them xxx Not only that, he expressly manifested his willingness to answer more questions from the senators, with the exception only of those covered by his claim of executive privilege.”
1.
a). Yes, the case may prosper.
If the Supreme Court proved that bribery has been committed by CA Justice Relles and the case was eventually referred to the DOJ for appropriate action, the DOJ can filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles.
… In A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, amendment to Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, Discipline of Judges and Justices:
SEC. 1 – Proceedings for the discipline of judges xxx justices of the CA xxx maybe instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person xxx
SEC. 8 – Serious charges includes: BRIBERY, direct or indirect; Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Law; Gross misconduct constituting violations of the code of Judicial Conduct.
If in the SC the proceedings for the discipline of justices of CA has been instituted and the person accused has been found guilty of the charges, but there are still some issues to be resolved, the SC may refer the case to the DOJ for appropriate action…
… in GSIS vs Meralco, after the SC declared that Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. is guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a justice of the Court of Appeals and is suspended for 2 months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty; his charges against Francis De Borja for attempted bribery of a member of the Judiciary was referred to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.
b). The DOJ can file criminal case directly, since the case has already been tested in the SC. And Bribery is under the RPC, Crimes Committed by Public Officers. DOJ can file directly a criminal case against J. Telles
c). The criminal case should be filed in the Supreme Court.
*2. The case may or may not prosper. It depends on whether Sec. Teri had not, even once, attended any of the committee hearings.
If Sec. Teri had never attended any of the hearings the case may prosper with the following reasons:
a). Since Sec. Teri is the head of his Department and the Senate has summoned him to inquire about the policies he issued, the senate may invoke Sec. 21 and 22 of Article VI, power of legislative inquiry and investigation… Sec. 21 and 22 states that:
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
SECTION 22. The heads of department may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, or as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the state or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.
Sec. 21 relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, its aim is to elicit information that may be used for legislation; Sec 22 pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of congress’ oversight function.
b). The case may prosper invoking Art. 150 of the RPC which states that a penalty of both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person, who having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before National Assembly, Congress xxx refuses without legal excuse, to obey such summons or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their function.
However, if Sec. Teri had once attended a hearing but failed to attend other hearings and invoked an executive privilege, the case may not prosper.
Sec. Teri may invoke executive privilege depending on its type. It could be regarding state secrets; identity of government informers; information related to pending investigation; presidential communications; and deliberative process.
The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the constitution to the President.
Sec. Teri may invoke rulings in Senate vs Ermita:
“ … when congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief Executive, such department heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty.”
Sec. Teri can also site the SC rulings in Neri vs Senate Committee:
“… Respondent Committees further contend that the grant of petitioner’s claim of executive privilege violates the constitutional provisions on right of the people to information on matters of public concern. We might have agreed with such contention IF petitioner Did Not appear before them at all. But petitioner made himself available top them xxx Not only that, he expressly manifested his willingness to answer more questions from the senators, with the exception only of those covered by his claim of executive privilege.”
1.a. it will NOT prosper. the action may prosper if justice Tabio filled the bribery complaint. the Revised Rules of Court provide that for the disciplinary actions for Justices of CA may be instituted, motu proprio by the SC or upon verified complaint supported by the person who has the personal knowledge of the facts.
1.b. administrative actions should come first for it will be helpful in determining criminal liabilities, and it should be filled with the SC.
Section 6, article 8 of the Philippine Constitution states that the SC shall have administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof.
2. the case will prosper.
provided in the Article 150 of the revised penal code Sec. Teri may be penalized of arresto mayor and/or a fine from two(2) hundred to one(1) thousand pesos.
ma'am daye if you will permit.. i would like to make a correction about the part of Rule 140 [DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COURTS AND JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN]
that I cited, its not Section 1 but it is Sections 7 and 8.
jezza:
1. An administrative action must first be filed against the erring justice because under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court [Discipline of Judges of regular and Special Courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan], it must first be shown that he is administratively liable for the comission of an administrative charge [Sec's 7 and 8], before the bribery complaint may prosper. the cases must be filed in the SC.
2. no. because in oversight hearings, the Rule on Question Hour applies, where the one who is summoned by the Congress to appear in its hearings has his discretion whether he wants to appear on the hearing or not. the power of the Congress to order Sec. Teri on such oversight hearing is not mandatory. Sec. 22 of Art. VI which is the basis of Question Hour rule only empowers Congress to 'request' appearances and not to order.
1.
*Yes. The case will prosper. CA Justice Relles, who accepted 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company,has committed direct bribery in which in Article 210 of the RPC, "Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift."
*No. An administrative action should be done first. CA Justice Relles must reply to the complaint, why should he not be liable to the said offense.
*The Crim/ Admin case must be filed in the Supreme Court. The Rules of Court, on the Discipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, Rule 140, Sec.1 states that:
…Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2.
*No. The case will not prosper.
On the processes aspect, The Senate's contempt citation for Sec. Teri should be invalidated. Sec. Teri may invoke the executive privilege or the EO464,in which his refusal to answer based on the claim of executive privilege does not violate the people's right to information on matters of public concern simply because Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution itself provides that this right is “subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
1).For me i think the action wil not prosper, because the DOJ belongs to the executive branch and it has no power over the judiciary and that, it would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
the DOJ cannot file directly crim/administrative case because of the doctrine of administrative remedies.an administrative case can be filed in the supreme court and criminal cases may be filed to the sandigang bayan.
2). The action will not prosper because as long as the sec. would not violate his privilege of immunity frm. suit.
on-line quiz:
1.it will not prosper because the DOJ is not responsible for the filing of a criminal complaint against the CA justice. The DOJ cannot file directly the criminal case to the CA for it violates the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,jumping of filing a complaint into another division or branch. Administrative case should be filed on the Supreme Court and Integrated Bar of the Philippines and criminal case should be filed on the Sandiganbayan.
2.The case will not prosper because Sec. Teri has the privilege to give reasons why he did not appear before he will be in contempt and as long as it will not violate his immunity from suit.
answers to online exam:
1. No, the case will not prosper. First reason, the DOJ is not the proper party to file the case. the DOJ has no direct control over the lower courts (Court of Appeals). Secondly, according to Article 8, Sec.5 (The Supreme Court shall have the following powers) Par.2 (c.All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.) and Art.8, Sec.6 (The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.) of the Philippine 1987 Constitution; therefore, it is the Supreme court who has the direct jurisdiction over Justices of the lower courts.
The DOJ can not directly file the case. what should be done first is to file an administrative case against J. Relles and it must be filed directly with the Supreme Court. If the case prosper against J. Relles was proved to be true, then a criminal case may now be filed against J. Relles.
2. No, the case will not prosper. the issue in this case pertains to public interest. What can be file against Sec. Teri is a contempt of court, a procedure that was automatically imposable because of the disobedience in a lawful order. But before contempt of court can be done, there must be a warning first.
On the other hand, if the national security or a top secret was the issue, the Sec. can be summoned, but he may invoke the Executive privilege.
1. Yes. the bribery complaint against Justice Relle will prosper provided such complaint would be adjudged to be sufficient in accordance to Rule 110 sec 6 of Rules of Court
Yes criminal case can be filed prior to the administrative action. A criminal action would sought to punish offense committed against the state while an administrative proceeding would be an inquiry as to the behavior of the member of Justice of the court of appeals. Since both actions sought for different cause likewise both can be filed and tried at the simultaneously.
The criminal action can filed in accordance with Sec 15 Rule 110 of the Rules of court. The administrative action on the other hand can be instituted motu propio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint.
Yes. the bribery complaint against Justice Relle will prosper provided such complaint would be adjudged to be sufficient in accordance to Rule 110 sec 6 of Rules of Court
Yes criminal case can be filed prior to the administrative action. A criminal action would sought to punish offense committed against the state while an administrative proceeding would be an inquiry as to the behavior of the member of Justice of the court of appeals. Since both actions sought for different cause likewise both can be filed and tried at the simultaneously.
The criminal action can filed in accordance with Sec 15 Rule 110 of the Rules of court. The administrative action on the other hand can be instituted motu propio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint.
1. yes, the case at bar will be prosper. Because art. regarding bribery of RPC book II provides that Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
the administrative case first should be filled in the Supreme court because it has exclusive supervision and disciplinary actions towards justices.
2. the case will be prosper because Art. 150 of RPC provides Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
It is the duty of secretary TERI to explain his side before the assembly regarding the policies he issued governing social security.
1.The case will not prosper.
Sec. 11, Art. 8 of the 1987 Constitution states that “...the Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the members who actually took part in the case and voted therein”..
DOJ cannot file a bribery complaint against J. Telles because it is the SC who has the power to discipline judges of the lower courts in case of their misconduct. The misconduct that will warrant disciplinary action of a judge by the Sc must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties, not his character as a private individual.
DOJ may investigate the case, hear it and present witnesses related thereto.
Criminal/Administrative case involving public officials must be filed in the Ombudsman.
Sec 1, Rule II (Administrative Order No. 07 As Amended
Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman) states that “A criminal complaint may be brought for an offense in violation of Republic Act No. 3019 as amended, Republic Act No. 6713, Title VII Chapter II, Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code, and for such other offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to office”.
2.The case will prosper.
Sec. Teri may not invoke his executive privilege,because the matter concerning the hearing is not a matter of state security and confidentiality.
In Senate vs Ermita, the SC ruled that Sec. Ermita may invoke his executive privilege according to EO 464.
Sec. 1 of the order provides “...all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress”
Further, Sec. 3 reads, “Appearance of Other Public Officials Before Congress. – All public officials enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation. This may not apply in the case at bar because what the Senate just want to inquire is just the policies he issued governing social security claims. And this matter concerns his department. Sec. 22, Art. VI reads “SECTION 22. The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session”.
The Congress has power of inquiry expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution which reads:SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
The impairment of the right of the people to information as a consequence of E.O. 464 is, therefore, just as direct as its violation of the legislature’s power of inquiry.
1. yes,it will prosper - because if the DOJ finds a cause based on evidence, they can file a bribery case.
Bribery is committed by a public official when he/she receives money or gift in consideration of something in return in favor of the giver. CA Justice Relles can be charged administratively before the Supreme Court being a justice for violating the Canons of Judicial Ethics and maybe disbarred from the roll of attorneys.
Filing of criminal case for bribery can be done simultaneously with the administrative case. It can be filed at the same time or either one will be filed first.
The criminal/administrative case can be filed in the Supreme Court being Relles as a CA justice.
2. yes, it will prosper - because of Sec. Teri's refusal to attend the hearing in violation of the Article 150 of the RPC penalizing ANY PERSON who having been duly summoned to attend before the National Assembly or Congress without legal excuse to obey such summon or being present before the assembly which can be penalized of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos.
Yes. Since the nature of hearing at case at bar is that of inquiry in aid of legislation i.e to inquire on social security policies made by Sec. Teri in one of the oversight hearings. Sec 1 of the E.O 464 as the Supreme Court held valid in the Ermita case cannot be applied to appearances of department heads in inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is subsequently made, either by the President herself or by the Executive Secretary.
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
A: if it has probable cause, yes it will.
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action?
A: yes, the DOJ can file directly the criminal case without prior filing of administrative case because criminal prosecution and administrative are two separate and distinct actions.
In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
A: for criminal action, the case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan.
for administrative action, the case should be filed in the Supreme Court.
------------------------------
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper?
Explain.
A: if he invoke the executive privilege, and in the event that the SC rules in his favor, the case will not prosper because it clearly shows that if the SC ruled upholding the lawfulness or constitutionality of an act, this act cannot be used as a ground for any criminal action as it does not fall outside the legal boundary. the criminal case will become moot and academic.
salome g. saro bps 4-2
I think criminal action will not prosper in this matter. Administrative action must first be taken into consideration wherein a disbarment case, which is an administrative proceeding, can be filed in the Supreme Court. The result of the administrative proceeding will determine whether the criminal action will prosper.
The criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC (Disobedience to Summons of Congress) will not prosper for the reason that in the same article it is stated that cabinet members, if they refused to attend hearings in Congress, they must have legal excuse. In this situation, Sec. Teri can use the EO 464 that prevents cabinet members, police and military generals, senior national security officials, and "such other officers as may be determined by the President" to attend congressional hearings unless the President gives permission to those who will attend the said proceedings.
1.No..The action will not prosper
Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption, is an act usually implying money or gift given that alters the behaviour of the recipient in ways not consistent with the duties of that person or in breach of law. Bribery constitutes a crime and offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty. The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.
Bribery is accepting gifts bestowed by a private person with the object of inducing him to give special consideration to the interests of the donor.
The case will not prosper because it’s not the person who filed a case has no personal involvement to the Bribery. DOJ Secretary has no legal personality it’s Justice Relles who has the rights to complaint. No. The DOJ can't file directly the criminal case and an administrative action should commence prior to the filing of the criminal action.The administrative case should be filed within the Supreme Court.
2.YES..the case will prosper.
The refusal of Sec.Teri to attend the Senate inquiry despite the summoned issued by that body may cite him for contempt and at the same be charged for Disobedience to summons of Congress.
1.
No, it is who has direct knowledge of the circumstance shall be given the privilege to file the case. But, if CA Justice Relles is proven to attend the bribery issue, then he has likewise violated the law, if so, then the case will prosper, given that it be filed by the authorized/knowledgeable person. In the meantime, an administrative case shall first be filed before a subsequent criminal case.
Bribery is an offense which is a ground for disciplinary action. If accusation of bribery is proved to be accurate, then CA Justice Relles has not only violated the Code of Ethics for public officials but also those for Lawyers, or the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 1.01, 1.02, 1.03 under Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that, a lawyer shall not; engage in unlawful activities; dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct; counsel or abet activities aimed to defy the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system; encourage, any corrupt motive or interest in the form of a suit or proceeding to delay any man’s cause.
Since an official of the Judiciary is concerned, a CA Justice, no less than, to be exact, then the case should be filed directly to the SC since they are the proper authority to attend to such proceeding.
2.
Yes, in refusing to appear before congress, Sec. Teri has not only violated Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress, but also committed an unconstitutional act.
Article VI, Section 22 of the Philippine Constitution provides the Congress the power to summon Head of Departments to appear before it, provided the purpose is in accordance to the monitoring of programs, activities and administration of the affairs of the concerned department.
In view of the circumstances present, it is apparent that Sec. Teri had committed violations which would warrant the case filed against him to prosper.
answer no 1. Yes, the bribery complaint filed by the DOJ against Justice Telles will prosper. In the case at the bar, Justice Telles was accused of accepting Php 5 million. As what the article 210 0f the Revised Penal Code provides, bribery constitutes:
"Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another...xxx"
An administrative case should commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action. The DOJ has the power to discipline the judges of lower courts including justices of the CA by virtue of Sec. 11, Art. VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states that:
"the Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal"
meaning, the DOJ has the jurisdiction to file an administrative complaint against a justice of inferior courts whenever a justice of the said court acts contrary to what is provided in the Sec. 11, Art.VIII of the said constitution.
The case shall be filed at the Supreme Court. Sec. 6, Art. VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution also provides that:
“the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. In the case at the bar, Justice Telles, being a CA Justice, the Supreme Court may exercise its administrative supervision over this complaint.
answer no 2. It depends.
Art. 150 of the Revised Penal Code -Disobedience to summons of Congress, provides that:
"The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon
(a) any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse to obey such summons,
(b) or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation
(c) or to answer any legal inquiry
(d) or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions.
In the case at the bar, Sec. Teri refused to attend Senate hearing. If Sec. Teri refused to attend with LEGAL REASON, then the case will not prosper; but if he has NO LEGAL REASON, it will prosper.
1.
the case will prosper. however, the DOJ should first file an administrative action prior to the criminal case in accordance with the Rule 140 Section 7&8. the administrative case should be filed in the Supreme Court in accordance to Article 8 Section6 of the Philippine Constitution which states that The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
2.
the case will not prosper. despite the power of the Congress to summon Sec. Teri for inquiry as with accordance to Article 8 Section 21&22 of the Constitution, it barely depends upon the time or situation that the Sec. is summon.
if the in the "question hour", the Congress cannot compel Sec. Teri to appear before them because in this time, it is the Secretary's discretion whether he will or will not appear for the inquiry. however, if it's in "the aid of legislation", that would be the time that they (Congress) can compel the Sec. to appear before them.
Thus, in this case, the Congress cannot file a criminal case against Sec. Teri for in this time, they dont have the power to compel the Sec.
1. 1. No, the case will not prosper because there will be an overlapping of powers and functions. Separation of power is not observed for the 1987 Phil. Constitution Art. VIII Sec. 6, Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Thus, this means that the judiciary is independent from the other branch of government. It is also said that the complaint will filed to the Supreme Court and not to other courts. The Supreme Court will determine if the case will prosper based on sound judicial discretion and preponderance of evidences.
2. No, the case will not prosper because Sec. Teri is covered by the Executive Privilege –EO 464 (Senate of the Phil. Versus Eduardo Ermita).
Answers:
1)Yes. the complaint against j. Telles would prosper. Based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution as stated on the Art. VIII Sec. 6 that the Supreme Court shall have an administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
This means that the DOJ Sec's complaint against J. Relles would prosper. The CA and its justices is under the administrative supervision of the DOJ Sec.
The should first pass an administrative case before passing a criminal case.
2)The case would not prosper, because Sec. Teri was acting in behalf of the government and therefor he was granted with general power including policy making that is within his scope of authority.
The Congress can only ask the court to determine whether Sec. Teri was acting in lack or excessive of his power.
ü
1. The complaint will prosper if there are pieces of evidence to the charge of bribery against the respondent justice. The complaint may be filed simultaneously or successively because the required quantum of evidence in both administrative and criminal actions are different. In administrative investigation, substantial evidence is required; while in criminal investigation, probable cause is required. The DOJ may also investigate the criminal aspect as ordered by the Supreme Court, although the office of the ombudsman has such power since the parties involved are public officers. At any rate, if there is a finding of probable cause, the criminal action should be filed before the sandiganbayan. If only one respondent involved is a private person, said action should be filed before the regular court, i.e. regional trial court.
2. The Senate may cite him in contempt for refusal to attend the hearing without justifiable cause or reason. But, Sec. Teri may probably invoke separation of powers or the so called Executive privilege. Therefore, the criminal case for violation of Art.150 of RPC will not prosper. And with regards of the issues regarding office policies are not covered by the power of the Senate to inquire as to the so called " in aid of legislation".
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
No, the case will not prosper. The person who has the personal knowledge of the bribery may file the bribery complaint against Justice Relles, in which, in this case is Justice Tabio. So therefore, the DOJ Secretary doesn’t have the legal personality to file the complaint of the alleged bribery.
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
No, the DOJ cannot file directly the criminal case, the administrative action should commence first before the filling of the criminal action; and it should be filed in the Supreme Court since the honorable court has the jurisdiction over the justices of Court of Appeals, in which in this case, Justice Relles is.
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
Yes, the case will prosper. It is provided in Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code that any person who has been summoned by the National Assembly to answer legal inquiry as Sec. Teri has to, refuses, without legal excuse, may be subjected of the imposed penalty of the cited article.
1.yes, the case will prosper.
the DOJ secretary can only file the the said complaint to the supreme court.after filing the complaint the supreme court will be the only one who will investgate about the case.
justice relles will be go through first in administrative proceeding and the DOJ secretary cannot file a direct criminal action to the accused.
Article VIII, Section 6of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Courts of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.therefore, the supreme court is the only institution where the complaint be filed.
2. no it will not prosper.the congress can only ask the court to determine whether sec. teri was acting in lack or excessive of its power. the congress need the consent of the president since it is already under the principle of the separation of powers.
1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
Yes, the case will prosper.
According to Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution:
“Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.”
An administrative action must commenced first; afterwards the filing for criminal case to proceed. Therefore, the case will prosper and direct filling of the case will be presented to the Supreme Court.
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain
.
Based on Section 1 of Executive Order 464: In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress.
When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only be conducted in executive session.
From this provision, the Senate’s claim of Secretary Teri’s violation of Article 150 of the RPC will be extinguished. Due to Secretary Teri was in accordance of Section 1 of E.O, 464, has shown reasonable action which not constitute to the violation of RPC Article 150.
Whether Sec. Teri’s policy for issuance of government social security claim shall be in the hands of court and will be further examine otherwise.
1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
1. No, the bribery case would not prosper for it violates the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over disciplinary of judges and Court Personnel of inferior courts. The 1987 Constitution vest the Supreme Court with the administrative supervision and disciplinary powers over judges and court personnel of inferior courts, which is inviolable and a manifestation of the judicial independence.
According to sec 11 ART VIII of the 1987 Constitution:
. Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power of discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon Members of
In the given case, Justice Tabio is a justice of the Court of Appeals, which is under the administrative supervision of Supreme Court. Justice Tabio’s Act of bribery arises fro, his performance as judge of the Court of Appeals by issuing a TRO in exchange of 5 Million pesos.
Since his actions arise from the performance of his official duties as judge of Court of Appeals, it is only proper that the Supreme Court should handle the case. The DOJ secretary should institute the admin case to the Supreme Court and not to any other courts.
1. No, the bribery case would not prosper for it violates the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over disciplinary of judges and Court Personnel of inferior courts. The 1987 Constitution vest the Supreme Court with the administrative supervision and disciplinary powers over judges and court personnel of inferior courts, which is inviolable and a manifestation of the judicial independence.
According to sec 11 ART VIII of the 1987 Constitution:
. Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power of discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon Members of
In the given case, Justice Tabio is a justice of the Court of Appeals, which is under the administrative supervision of Supreme Court. Justice Tabio’s Act of bribery arises fro, his performance as judge of the Court of Appeals by issuing a TRO in exchange of 5 Million pesos.
Since his actions arise from the performance of his official duties as judge of Court of Appeals, it is only proper that the Supreme Court should handle the case. The DOJ secretary should institute the administrative case to the Supreme Court and not to any other courts.
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action? In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed
An Administrative complaint should be instituted first to the Supreme Court and the criminal case should follow only after the Supreme Court has resolved the administrative case. The reason is simple, judicial independence, only the Supreme Court can oversee the Judge’s and Court Personnel’s compliance with al laws, and take the proper administrative action against them, if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of the government may intrude into this power, without running a foul by the doctrine of Separation of Powers. ( Maceda vs. Marquez)
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper?
No, the case will not prosper because the Senate’s Oversight hearing in pursuant to sec 22 ART VI of the 1987 Constitution is not mandatory. Senate cannot compel Secretary Teri to appear before it, because the hearing is not in aid of legislation but is an inquiry on how laws are implemented, and compulsion would violate the principle of Separation of Powers.
When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department head are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom, as chief executive, such department heads must give report of their performance as a matter of duty. (Senate vs. Ermita)
Hence in the given case where Sec. Teri refusal to attend the hearing is a valid defense and supported by the principle of separation of powers. The Framers of the Constitution remove the mandatory nature of appearance of Department Heads during the question hour in the present Constitution, so as to conform more to a system of separation of powers.(SENATE vs. ERMITA)
DOUBLE CHECK lang po bka kc di pumasok yung una kong comment due to internet insuperable causes tnx poh.
1. No, the bribery case would not prosper for it violates the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over disciplinary of judges and Court Personnel of inferior courts. The 1987 Constitution vest the Supreme Court with the administrative supervision and disciplinary powers over judges and court personnel of inferior courts, which is inviolable and a manifestation of the judicial independence.
According to sec 11 ART VIII of the 1987 Constitution:
. Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power of discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon Members of
In the given case, Justice Tabio is a justice of the Court of Appeals, which is under the administrative supervision of Supreme Court. Justice Tabio’s Act of bribery arises fro, his performance as judge of the Court of Appeals by issuing a TRO in exchange of 5 Million pesos.
Since his actions arise from the performance of his official duties as judge of Court of Appeals, it is only proper that the Supreme Court should handle the case. The DOJ secretary should institute the admin case to the Supreme Court and not to any other courts.
An Administrative complaint should be instituted first to the Supreme Court and the criminal case should follow only after the Supreme Court has resolved the administrative case. The reason is simple, judicial independence, only the Supreme Court can oversee the Judge’s and Court Personnel’s compliance with al laws, and take the proper administrative action against them, if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of the government may intrude into this power, without running a foul by the doctrine of Separation of Powers. ( Maceda vs. Marquez)
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper?
No, the case will not prosper because the Senate’s Oversight hearing in pursuant to sec 22 ART VI of the 1987 Constitution is not mandatory. Senate cannot compel Secretary Teri to appear before it, because the hearing is not aid of legislation but is an inquiry on how laws are implemented, and compulsion would violate the principle of Separation of Powers.
When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department head are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom, as chief executive, such department heads must give report of their performance as a matter of duty. (Senate vs. Ermita)
Hence in the given case where Sec. Teri refusal to attend the hearing is a valid defense and supported by the principle of separation of powers. The Framers of the Constitution remove the mandatory nature of appearance of Department Heads during the question hour in the present Constitution, so as to conform more to a system of separation of powers.(SENATE vs. ERMITA)
Shenelyn V. Dela Cruz
BPS IV-2
1. Yes, the complaint will prosper. at common law , bibery is a criminal offense. if there are pieces of evidencero charge against CA Justce Relles. The required quantum of evidence in both administrative and criminal actions are dfferent. the complaint may be filed simultaneously or successively. In crimnal probable cause is required while in administrative substantial evidence is required . Under Art. 8 Sc. 6 of the 1987 Phil. Const. "The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof." . the DOJ may also investigate the criminal aspect as ordered by the Supreme Court eventhough the office of the Ombudsman has the power because the parties involved in this case are publc officers.on the provision of the 1987 phil. constitution, Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power of discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon."
In criminal action, if they found probable cause, it should be filed in the sandiganbayan, but if the parties involved in any case, are private persons, the action should be filed in a regular court.
2. The case will not prosper.the senate may cite him in contempt for the refsal to attend the hearing without jusifiable cause or reason, but on the criminal action for the disobedience to obey, as what written or stated on art. 150 sec,. Teri , he may probably invke the separation of powers or the executive privilege. to give a case in relative with this, the case of senate vs. ermita.wherein EO 464 was resurrected wth this controversy, in EO 464, the executive privilege and the power to inquiry or the aid of legislation was defined.the power of inquiry [inquiry in aid of legislation] of Congress is expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. An exemption to such Congressional power falls under the rubric of executive privilege, which is also a constitutional concept. Executive privilege, however, is recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. The validity of a claim thereof depends on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. Executive officials are NOT exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of being executive officials. (senate vs. ermita) to cite a provision from the Consttution under Art VI sec. 21 and 22, states that. "Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
Section 22. The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session."
this citations can justify why this case will not prosper.
Shenelyn V. Dela Cruz
BPS IV-2
1. Yes, the complaint will prosper. at common law , bibery is a criminal offense. if there are pieces of evidencero charge against CA Justce Relles. The required quantum of evidence in both administrative and criminal actions are dfferent. the complaint may be filed simultaneously or successively. In crimnal probable cause is required while in administrative substantial evidence is required . Under Art. 8 Sc. 6 of the 1987 Phil. Const. "The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof." . the DOJ may also investigate the criminal aspect as ordered by the Supreme Court eventhough the office of the Ombudsman has the power because the parties involved in this case are publc officers.on the provision of the 1987 phil. constitution, Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power of discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon."
In criminal action, if they found probable cause, it should be filed in the sandiganbayan, but if the parties involved in any case, are private persons, the action should be filed in a regular court.
2. The case will not prosper.the senate may cite him in contempt for the refsal to attend the hearing without jusifiable cause or reason, but on the criminal action for the disobedience to obey, as what written or stated on art. 150 sec,. Teri , he may probably invke the separation of powers or the executive privilege. to give a case in relative with this, the case of senate vs. ermita.wherein EO 464 was resurrected wth this controversy, in EO 464, the executive privilege and the power to inquiry or the aid of legislation was defined.the power of inquiry [inquiry in aid of legislation] of Congress is expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. An exemption to such Congressional power falls under the rubric of executive privilege, which is also a constitutional concept. Executive privilege, however, is recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. The validity of a claim thereof depends on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. Executive officials are NOT exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of being executive officials. (senate vs. ermita) to cite a provision from the Consttution under Art VI sec. 21 and 22, states that. "Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
Section 22. The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session."
this citations can justify why this case will not prosper.
Quiz Online for BPS/BPAG students
To make up for the midterm exams you can answer the following questions, for an incentive:
(1) CA Justice Relles was accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio of accepting 5M in issuing a TRO against a huge water company. DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J. Telles, will it prosper?
--- As defines by the revised penal code, CA justice Relles is considered as public officers and therefore not immune from any criminal liability. Being defined also by the revised penal code, bribery is considered as direct and indirect, therefore if CA Justice Relles has cause an act of bribery either direct and indirect he is still subjected for trial and investigations.
Can the DOJ file directly the criminal case or should an administrative action be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action?
---The DOJ may directly file the criminal case, because an administrative proceeding may be ordered by the Ombudsman or the respective Deputy Ombudsman on the basis of a complaint originally filed as a criminal action or a grievance complaint. Therefore any public officers who are the subjected to any criminal proceeding may be also subjected to an administrative proceeding arising from the criminal case of that public official.
In what court should the Crim/Admin case be filed?
---Criminal case of bribery having a fine of prision mayor should be first filed in the Regional Trial Court. The administrative case should be file in the Office of the Ombudsman or to the Sandigan Bayan.
(2) The Senate summoned Sec. Teri to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings. Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing. The Senate cited him in contempt and filed a criminal case for violation of Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. Will the case prosper? Explain.
--- The case will prosper, unless Sec. Teri will find some nullity or void in the issuance of his summon. It was stated in article 150 of the revised penal code that it is considered as a crime of disobedience to persons in authority. It is Sec. Teri’s duty to answer the inquiries of the person in authority given the fact that it was an inquiry about the policy that he issued. Unless otherwise Sec Teri had file an affidavit on the subject of his refusal to attend the hearing.
Kriszel V. Manalili
BPAG 4-3
1. No. The Bribery Complaint against justice Relles will not prosper. The Reason was an Administrative action shall be filed in the Supreme Court before the criminal action.
Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel and can oversee the judges and personnel’s compliance with all laws and take the right administrative action.
The Supreme Court has the power to discipline judge the members of the lower courts.
The power to contempt is necessary for its own protection.
2. Yes, the case will prosper. The Senate can file a criminal case because Sec. Teri violates the Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. And Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing.
1. No, the complaint against J. Relles will not prosper.
Administrative case against J. Relles should be filed prior to criminal case.
Only the Supreme Court shall have the power to discipline the judges of courts. Art. VIII Sec.11 of 1987 Phil. Constitution says, “The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power of discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.”
Art.VIII Sec. 6 of 1987 Constitution says, “The Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.” Only the Supreme Court has the capacity to supervise the judges and court personnel’s compliance with all laws. And if they give any unconstitutional actions, the en banc has the inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in furtherance of justice the other persons connected in any manner with a case before the court.
The power to punish for contempt is “necessary for its own protection against an improper interference with the due of the administration of justice.”
Therefore, administrative action against J.Relles should be decided first by the en banc before criminal action can be filed before the Office of the Ombudsman for the commission of the GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICE.
2. Because of the Art. 150 of RPC the senate can file a criminal charge.
Art. 150 states that, “Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.”
Therefore, Sec. Teri refuses without legal excuses, senate can file a criminal case against him.
1. No. The Bribery Complaint against justice Relles will not prosper. The Reason was an Administrative action shall be filed in the Supreme Court before the criminal action.
Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel and can oversee the judges and personnel’s compliance with all laws and take the right administrative action.
The Supreme Court has the power to discipline judge the members of the lower courts.
The power to contempt is necessary for its own protection.
2. Yes, the case will prosper. The Senate can file a criminal case because Sec. Teri violates the Article 150 of the RPC: Disobedience to Summons of Congress. And Sec. Teri refused to attend the hearing.
**1.)The bribery complaint will prosper. The DOJ can directly file criminal case on CA justice Relles. CA Justice Relles who is an appointive officer by a competent authority stated in Section 203 of the Revised Penal Code is held liable for the criminal case involving bribery which is punishable on the Same code stated in Title Seven, Section 210.
The case should first be filed to the Regional Trial Court since the penalty can be prision mayor which shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
If Relles would found guilty of this crime with probable cause, the Supreme Court has also the right to do preliminary investigation on the case and it can make its own trial since the case was also administrative in nature.
2.)The case will prosper but still Sec. Teri has the right for his counter claim. He can file an affidavit of reason in his failure to attend his duty. If Sec. Teri has the grounds for his absence, he can be exempted from the administrative case.
1.No. the bribery complaint will not prosper. An administrative action shall be filed in the Supreme Court before the criminal actions, the supreme court can only oversee the judges and court’s personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. It has the power to discipline the members of the lower court, the power to discipline necessarily carries with it power to supervise. The Supreme Court will remove the judges or provide for sanctions on the matters of discipline. In addition to this, they have the power to do the administrative actions prior to the filing of criminal action after being decided by the full court itself.
2. Yes it will prosper because obviously Teri violated the RPC 150, it punished as disobedience to the National Assembly or Summons of Congress.
1. assuming that is true. yes it will prosper. and DOJ finds probable cause based on evidenced, they can file bribery case. bribery is committed when a public official receives money or anything of value in consideration of something or to favor the giver. The CA justice for violating the canons of judicial ethics may be disbarred.
Bribery case can be done simultaneously with admin case.
2.If Secretary Teri has no legal excuse in not attending. then it will prosper. Legal excuse can be, he got sick, with important previous appointment or ordered by the president not to attend.
answers
1.Yes, it will prosper assuming that’s the accusations is true because if the Department of Justice finds probable cause based on evidences then they can file a bribery case and Justice Relles can be held criminally and administratively liable. He can be held criminally liable considering the fact that bribery is generally a crime committed by public officials when they receive money or anything of value from a private person for some consideration or favor to the later. And administratively liable for violating the four folds duties of attorneys and may be disbarred.
The criminal case can be simultaneous with the administrative case or the one of the two cases against the CA justice can be filed first. The administrative case may be filed to the Supreme Court and the criminal case shall be filed on the Regional Trial Court depending on where the crime was committed.
2. It depends, the case will prosper if Sec. Teri fails to give a reasonable legal excuse such as sickness, important appointment or order by the president just like the case on the ZTE deal wherein Sec. Neri refuse to attend the hearing. Also, in violation of Art. 150 of the Revised Penal Code provides” any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions.” On the contrary the case will not prosper if he has given a reasonable legal excuse and if the Congress accepts the excuse.
1.
As to the case of CA Justice Relles being accused by a fellow CA Justice Tabio for accepting 5M in issuing TRO against a huge water company, DOJ Sec filed a bribery complaint against J, Telles. Well, as far as the presence of the pieces of evidences were concerned, the complaint under the circumstances will prosper to the charge of bribery against the respondent justice. The complaint maybe filed simultaneously or successively because the required quantum of evidence in both administrative and criminal actions are different. In administrative investigation, substantial evidence is required; while in criminal investigation, the required is probable cause. DOJ may also investigate the criminal aspect as ordered by the supreme court, although the office of the Ombudsman has such power since the parties involved are public officers. At any rate, if there is finding of probable cause, the criminal action should be filed before the Sandiganbayan. If only the respondent, involved is a private person, said action should be filed before the regular court.i.e.,Regional Trial Court
2.
The Senate may cite Sec Teri in contempt for the refusal to attend the hearing without justifiable cause or reason. But the criminal action for disobedience to obey summons. Sec. Teri may probably invoke separation of powers or the so-called executive privilege. Therefore the criminal case may not prosper.
Answer no. 1
Proposing that the accusations were true and should the DOJ finds probable cause based on depicts of evidence they are allowed to file bribery, bribery it is committed when a public official receives anything such as money, gifts or anything of value in favor of the giver.CA Justice Relles may also be sued for violating the modes of judicial ethics and may be disbarred.
Furthermore Filing of criminal case to justice Relles can be done simultaneously with the administrative case in that sense it can be at the same time or either of the one should be filed. Both Criminal Case and Administrative Case may be filed to the Supreme Court of Justice.
Answer No. 2
The case depends on the circumstances wherein Teri should assess a legal excuse on his absence whether it is by sickness or a very important appointment or do ordered by higher ups like the president telling him not to attend etc. for legal reasons and justifications. If he could not provide any legal excuse then the case may prosper in violation of Art. 150 of the Revised Penal Code States that any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
(1) Bribery is committed when a public official receives money or anything of value in consideration of something or to favor the giver. if ever the evidence lead to the situation given I think, the bribery case will prosper. CA justice Relles can be charged administratively for violating the code of judiciaL ethics and he may be disbarred.
Administrative and criminal case can be filed at the same time or may file first either of the two. Administrative case can be filed at the Supreme Court while Criminal Case for bribery shall filed in Regional Trial Court where the acceptance of money happened.
(2) If Sec. Teri has no legal excuse in not attending the Senate's oversight hearing, i think the case will prosper but if he has a legal excuse in rejecting the summoned of the Senate i think the case will not prosper as provided in Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code.
"Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official."
1. Bribery case will prosper if DOJ finds probable cause based on evidences regarding Justice Relles acceptance of 50M. Bribery happens when a public official receives money, gifts or anything in exchange of a favor to the one who give.
The CA justice can be charged an administrative case in the Supreme Court because of violating the canons of judicial ethics and this may be a ground for his disbarment , likewise he can be charged a criminal case in any RTC where the incident of bribe happened. Administrative and Criminal Case can be filed simultaneously or may file an administrative case first before criminal case or vice versa.
2. Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code provides that:
Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
therefore, if Sec.Teri has no any legal excuse for not attending the Senate's Hearing the Criminal Case will prosper for violating Article 150 of RPC.
;-D
1. The bribery case filed will prosper if it is proven that the 5M amount of money is used to delay, stop, or accomplish an act which is against the law and with the connection on the performance of his duties for the gain the one who bribes.
Since Justice Relles is a Philippine court of Appeals Justice, he is under the Supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and may be charged administratively in the Supreme Court by disbarment or dismissal from service.
2). I think the case will not prosper because Article 50 of the RPC states that :
Article 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.(As amended by Com. Act No. 52.)
and as to the situation given, Sec. Teri was only asked to attend to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings, not as a witness, which is penalized under the provision of the Article 150 of the RPC
1. The bribery case filed will prosper if it is proven that the 5M amount of money is used to delay, stop, or accomplish an act which is against the law and with the connection on the performance of his duties for the gain the one who bribes.
Since Justice Relles is a Philippine court of Appeals Justice, he is under the Supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and may be charged administratively in the Supreme Court by disbarment or dismissal from service.
2). I think the case will not prosper because Article 50 of the RPC states that :
Article 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.(As amended by Com. Act No. 52.)
and as to the situation given, Sec. Teri was only asked to attend to inquire about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the Senate's oversight hearings, not as a witness, which is penalized under the provision of the Article 150 of the RPC
BSBanlaoi
1. Yes, presumption that is true and DOJ finds a probable cause based on the evidence, the DOJ could file for a bribery case. It is because the bribery will only exist when a public official obtain money from or any costly things in trade of the consideration or favoring the provider. Justice Relles can be charged administrative before the Supreme Court being a justice for the disobedience of some judicial ethics and could be removed from the list of lawyers and be disbarred. The DOJ can file criminal case for bribery and it can be done simultaneously with administrative case. It can be filed one at a time or both at the same time. The criminal case can be filed in the Regional Trial Court where bribery was done.
2. The progress of the case will depend if Sec. Teri could give explanations why he did not attend the meeting for some legal reasons. if he fails to provide for the evidences needed for his legal excuse then the case will prosper. thuis excuses pointing out for example if he got sick, Sec. Teri has to presnt a medical certificate or for the reason of some previous meetings. in vioolation of the Article 150 of the RPC, Sec. teri will be exempted from criminal liability because of the reason that as a secretary it is his decision whether to attend the hearing or not like in the case of the ZTE scandal. Secretary is immune from the sue because it is included in the Executive Order that the Secretary has his right to attend, or remain silent in the hearings.
1. Yes. Because bribery is an offense included in the serious charges which is one of the classifications of administrative charges that can be filed against judges as provided for in Rule 140, Sec. 7 and 8 of the Revised Rules of Court.
· No. An administrative action should commence prior to the filing of the criminal action. As conveyed in the case of Maceda vs. Vasquez:
“where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from the performance of their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must determine first whether or not the said judge or employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.”
· In the Supreme Court.
Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vest in the Supreme Court the administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.
2. No.
Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code is subject to the provision of the Constitution dealing with the congressional power of investigation, insofar as department heads are concerned. Art. VI, Sec. 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides-
“The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.”
Insofar as the department heads are concerned, they may only be requested, but not summoned nor subpoenaed to appear as a witness by either chamber of the congress, or any special or standing committee or subcommittee thereof, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses. Even if the request be considered a summons within the meaning of Article 150 of the RPC, still failure to honor it cannot be penalized.
Emil L. Samaniego
1. No, the case will not prosper since the DOJ Secretary in the capacity of his office cannot file a bribery complaint to any person specially Justice of the Court since its charter does not grant it the power and mandate to do so specifically duty to look for and sue an erring justice or member of the court. However, if the DOJ Secretary in his capacity as a concerned citizen files a bribery complaint to CA Justice Relles, then, on this regard the case may prosper.
Granting that the DOJ can file the bribery complaint, administrative action shall commence first prior to the filling of the criminal action specially because the criminal action arises from the administrative duties of Justice Relles, and since the accused is a member of the Judiciary he is under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court as contemplated by Article VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution, this is the reason why the administrative complaint shall be file to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the criminal complaint if filed simultaneously by the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the Supreme Court for determination whether said judge (Justice Relles) or court employee had acted within the scope of administrative duties (Maceda vs. Vasquez). Hence, the Supreme Court enjoys the jurisdiction to hear both the administrative and criminal cases.
2. No, the case will not prosper since the Senate during its oversight hearings cannot compel the appearance of department heads unless only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation (Senate v. Ermita). Paraphrasing the landmark case Senate v. Ermita, it declared that the power of Congress to contempt and file a criminal case for violation of Art. 150 of Revise Penal Code, to a department head refusing to attend hearings is applicable only to its power to conduct investigation in aid of legislation under Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution, but not to its power to conduct a question hour in which the objective is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress' oversight function over the executive department as contemplated under Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution. The basis of this is the fundamental principle of separation of power.
sorry po for the late comment, kalalabas ko lang po ng hospital this morning due to dehydration, ilang araw na po se kong nag-e-LBM.. hope you'll consider my situation, i'll present my excuse letter next saturday.. hope for your consideration..
in question #1, the DOJ cannot file criminal case for it is not under their jurisdiction..
in #2,i think no, the persons involved in the case did not cooperate..
- ends here -
Suggested answer and alternative answers will be posted soon.
Thanks for taking time. ;)
clarisse lim
waaah bt po wala skin?
Hi clarisse.
You might not have posted your comment properly. I approved all the comments so it's impossible I might have missed yours.
Next time.
cnu c daughter of God?
ma'am daye, i posted po my answer last saturday morning.. i was worried kc po..ndi nyo npost ung answer k0... c jessica po ung witness k0 n i posted my answer Saturday morning pa. bakit d po n-post?
Hi katie.
Just the same, you may not have posted your answer properly.
Next time.
katie rosales
due to the austerity measure im having right now, i am able to retype my answers at this time po...
1 No. the bribery complaint against J. Telles filed by the DOJ Sec. will not prosper.
An administrative action charging misconduct as one of the violation grounds shall be filed by the Supreme Court before the criminal case be filed.
As stated in Art VIII Sec 6.The Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof.
It must be borne in mind that the resolution of the administrative charge of unduly delaying the disposition of said criminal case involves the determination of whether in resolving the alarms and scandal case, petitioner- judge acted in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Rules of Court and in the Administrative Circulars in pursuance of the ideals embodied in the code of Judicial conduct. Such is clearly an administrative matter.
It is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and courts personnel’s compliance with all laws and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof and no other branch of government may intrude into this power without any running afoul by the doctrine of separation of powers (as the DOJ as part of the Executive branch trying to file a criminal case to CA Justice Telles).
Moreover, the Supreme Court has the inherent power to control in the furtherance of justice other persons connected in any manner for contempt is necessary for its administration of justice. “It is not dependant upon the complaint of any of the parties of the litigant.”
Also, SEC XI Art VIII gives the Supreme Court en banc the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order of their dismissal by a vote of majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
The Supreme Court has the power to discipline the members of the lower courts, the power to discipline is necessary carries it with the power to supervise because in the power to supervise, we are aborting what would eventually be an administrative case since it is the Supreme Court which will remove the judges or provide for sanctions on matters of discipline.
Thus, for the assailed legislation mandated that Justice and Judges of inferior courts are the Court of Appeals to municipal circuits courts except the occupants of the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals.
Evidently, in this instance the administrative case must be deliberated upon the decided by the full court itself. (In B. People v. Gacott Jr.)
Pursuant to the first clause which confers administrative disciplinary powers to court en banc, a resolution “Bar Matter No. 209 provide that for said purpose: the following are considered en banc cases:
6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the Judiciary, disbarment of lawyers or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one year or a fine exceeding P10, 000 or both.
Indeed the Supreme Court has the power to do the administrative action prior to the filing of criminal action after being decided by the Full Court itself.
After, if seeking that the criminal case must prosper the action shall be filed in the Office of the Ombudsman in violating R. A 3019 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICE Act.
2. The senate can file a criminal case of contempt under the violation of the RPC 150 that the act punished as disobedience to the National Assembly or its Committee or Constitutional Commission since Sec. Teri did not show any legal cause to refuse and by refusing to answer any legal inquiry when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions.
Also, as embodied under Sec. 21 and 22 respectively of Art VI of the Constitution the legislative and oversight power of the Congress to wit:
Sec 21The senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committers may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duty published Rules of Procedure. The right of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
Sec 22 The heads of Department may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President or upon the request of either House or as the Rules of each house shall provide appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments…
The power of the Congress to conduct investigations encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes survey of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling Congress to remedy them.
His constitutional privilege against self- incrimination unless established must yield to that duty. When a specific right and a specific obligation conflict with each other and one is doubtful or uncertain while the other is clear and imperative, the former must yield to the latter.
However, the Senate cannot file contempt to Sec. Teri if an executive order life Executive Privilege would hamper or cover him to answer questions by the queries of the Senate.
Because in Senate v. Ermita, it is clear that when Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes, which it has issued its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief Executive, such department heads must give a report of this performance of duty. In such instances, Sec 22 in keeping with the separation of powers, states that Congress may only request their appearance.
In fine, the oversight hearing function of the congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the absent that it is performed in present of legislation. However, if there is the recognizable claim on an executive privilege, the Senate cannot file such criminal case. The Congress must not require the executive to state the reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel disclosure of the information which the executive privilege is meant to protect. This is a matter of respecting of a coordinate and co- equal department.
Taking the stand that with the absence of an executive order (as shown in Senate v. Ermita), requiring department heads to have and ask for consent of the President, the Senate by its legislature and oversight power ca file a criminal case to Sec. Teri.
ma'am, pwede po bng i-send ult ung ndi ko na-post na answer last friday evening?
Cge ghe..
Malay mo may grade din ang late effort. But I can't promise. Haha.
Post a Comment
<< Home