DAYEdalera
Monday, September 22, 2008
Resolution for BPS/BPAG Mooters
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is the Resolution of the Court dated September 22, 2008:
G.R. No. 4-1 Journalists, Attorneys, et.al. vs. GRP and NISA – the PETITION is NOTED. The COMMENT of the Respondents is likewise NOTED. However, Petitioners and Respondents are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE for failure to comply and to SUBMIT an electronic copy of the Petition/Comment in accordance with the Moot Court Rules within three (3) days or until September 25, 2008.
G.R. No. 4-2 Atty. Sy Nungaling vs. Commission on Appointments – the PETITION is NOTED. The COMMENT of the Respondents is likewise NOTED.
G.R. No. 4-3 Sisa Linghot vs. Familia Network Inc. – the PETITION is NOTED. The COMMENT of the Respondents is likewise NOTED. However, Petitioners is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE for failure to comply and to SUBMIT an electronic copy of the Petition in accordance with the Moot Court Rules within three (3) days or until September 25, 2008.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 4-1 Journalists, Attorneys, et.al. vs. GRP and NISA – the PETITION is NOTED. The COMMENT of the Respondents is likewise NOTED. However, Petitioners and Respondents are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE for failure to comply and to SUBMIT an electronic copy of the Petition/Comment in accordance with the Moot Court Rules within three (3) days or until September 25, 2008.
G.R. No. 4-2 Atty. Sy Nungaling vs. Commission on Appointments – the PETITION is NOTED. The COMMENT of the Respondents is likewise NOTED.
G.R. No. 4-3 Sisa Linghot vs. Familia Network Inc. – the PETITION is NOTED. The COMMENT of the Respondents is likewise NOTED. However, Petitioners is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE for failure to comply and to SUBMIT an electronic copy of the Petition in accordance with the Moot Court Rules within three (3) days or until September 25, 2008.
SO ORDERED.
Nota Bene: All Sections are reminded to submit the electronic list of their Group Members and roles assigned. ASAP.
.JPG)
8 Comments:
petitioners group (4-3)
mam, nasend po nmen ung petition, wer very sure kasi chenck po nmen ung sent item sa mail!anu pong ggawin nmen ngaun!?issend nlng po ba nmen ulet?thank u po!
Please send it. Show cause by manifestation or compliance form of a pleading attaching any proof that would satisfy the PJ that you substantially have complied with the Rules.
good afternoon maa'm.we will send it again as soon as possible..tpoz pwde din po namen ipacheck sa mga classmates namen na member ng special group yung sent items just to show na nasend po namen..we are hoping 4 ur kind consideration..thank u po...
petitioners group (4-3)
mam, nresend na po..
Noted.
petitioners group (4-2)
Mam, gud morning, nasend q na po ung sa amen nung monday sa blog nio po na daye.tolentino@gmail.com
(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 case will not prosper; in bribery cases it is assumed that there is a bribe taker and a bribe giver. This is confusing issue. The first thing that must be established is whether or not there was a bribe giver and bribe taker after this is established, the next thing to do is to file charges for bribery against the taker and the giver. It should hardly matter as for as a crime of bribery is concerned.
The Department of Justice cannot filed a bribery complaint against CA justice Telles for a reason that the Department of Justice has no legal personality to filed a complaint against CA justice Telles. The person that has the right to file a complaint against JusticeTelles is the people who have knowledge about bribe taker and it is CA Tabio.
It’s related to 1986 Constitution Article VIII section 6 stating that the Supreme Court shall have Administrative supervision over all court and the personnel thereof. The Supreme Court exercise Administrative Supervision over all courts from the court of appeals down to the lowest courts and the personnel thereof. This is one of the Fundamental changes introduced in respect of the judicial system.
And Mr. Telles as a bribe taker is liable for Administrative Action. For a reason that Mr. Telles Violate the code of professional responsibility Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01, stating that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Rule 1.02, that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in legal system. And also Rule 1.03 that a lawyer shall not for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
Therefore, the complaint filed by DOJ to Justice Telles will not prosper, otherwise JusticeTabio the one who filed a complaint.
• 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: No. Department of Justice cannot file directly the criminal case instead Administrative action should be commenced prior to the filing of the criminal action. For a reason that DOJ secretary must first look all available Administrative action before filing any criminal complaint. The Supreme Court has the responsibility to mange to prepare about the complaint. Because that supreme court reiterated its resolution dated 19 November 1988 directing that all complaints against justices and judges of lower court filed before the commission on bar discipline should promptly be referred to supreme court for 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.
Answer: Yes, the case will prosper, Sec. Teri who refused to attend the hearing even the senate summoned him to inquires about the policies he issued governing social security claims into one of the senate’s oversight hearing and can chargeand filed a complaint against him for Disobedience to summons of congress pursuant to Article 150 0f Revised Penal Code stating 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.
Meaning any ofthis act may also constitute of congress and punish as such independent of criminal prosecution,
Therefore, the senate has the right in filing a complaint against Sec. Teri, for the reason of violating Article150 of RPC and it will prosper.
Intro. to Law: Quiz
1. The case will not prosper as the complaint was filed by the DOJ. The CA being under the SC is subject to its control. It is the Supreme Court that should decide over this case.
The complaint of bribery against J. Relles is a ground for disciplinary charges against justices of CA as enumerated under Rule 140 Sec. 8 of the Rules of Court. The fact that the bribery happened while he (J. Relles) is still in office made him liable for committing one of the serious charges of the said rule. Therefore, the DOJ cannot directly file a criminal case against J. Relles. An administrative action shall first commence before a criminal case may prosper.
The administrative case must be filed on Supreme Court. The Constitution itself guarantees, under Article VIII Sec. 6, that the Supreme Court is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel.
Also, pursuant to Rule 140 Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court
According to Rule 140 Sec. 1:
“SECTION 1. How instituted. – 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…
Furthermore, citing the case of Maceda vs Vasquez the court ruled that:
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. The case will not prosper and Sec. Teri cannot be cited for contempt and violation of Art. 150 of the RPC. The said article (Art. 150) provides an exception to summons issued for valid reasons. The Executive Privilege is a valid claim for exceptions as being asked under Art. 150 of RPC.
Article VI Sec. 21 states that:
“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”
Although the Constitution vested this power to the Congress, there are still exemptions to that power – the claim of executive privilege. Since the Congress is exercising its power of inquiry, the only way that Sec. Teri can exempt himself is by invoking executive privilege or the power of the government to withhold information from the public, the Courts and the Congress, based on Article VI Sec. 22 of the Constitution.
Moreover, there are two types of legislative power of inquiry. First, is the power of inquiry in aid of legislation and second the power of inquiry in fulfillment of Congress’ oversight function. If the court is exercising its power to oversight, the attendance of officials is said to be discretionary.
-Charmaine Danica B. Aguila_
Bps 4-2
Post a Comment
<< Home