SC rulings make headlines in 2023
By J.Lo
"Our performance has improved in terms of disposition compared to last year,we expect to further expedite processing of cases, not only in SC, but also in lower courts, once we started using technology that we plan to implement next year, " Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo said as 2023 came to close, SC saw improvement in number of cases it resolved, with help of recent technological advancements.
In briefing, Gesmundo revealed SC has resolved 3,711 cases as of Sept. 30 this year, accounting for 21 percent disposition rate. This is up from 19 percent rate recorded in 2022. He also touted clearance rate of 84 percent.
Meanwhile, for administrative and en banc matters, high tribunal has resolved 1,729 cases, accounting for 29 percent disposition rate and 88 percent clearance rate.
In January, SC declared Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking among China, Vietnam and Philippines signed by administration of then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as unconstitutional and void.
Joint venture by and among China National National Offshore Oil Corp., Vietnam Oil and Gas Corp. and tPhilippine National Oil Co. covers 142,886 square meters in South China Sea.
Court voted 12-2-1, saying venture was unconstitutional "for allowing wholly-owned foreign corporations to participate in exploration of country's natural resources without observing safeguards" provided in Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
Also in January, SC upheld constitutionality of Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion or TRAIN law as it dismissed consolidated petitions against measure that argued it was unconstitutionally passed by House of Representatives given lack of quorum and that its provisions imposing excise on petroleum products are "prohibited regressive taxes."
Thirteen justices voted to dismiss petitions against it. SC held supposed absence of quorum was refuted by official journal of House of Representatives, both on the day TRAIN's Bicameral Conference Report was ratified and on immediately subsequent session date of Jan. 15, 2018.
SC also reiterated Constitution, in its present form, does not prohibit imposition of regressive taxes, but merely directs Congress to evolve progressive system of taxation.
In June, with only four months left until election day, SC declared law postponing barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections (BSKE) as unconstitutional.
SC issued decision eight months after concluding oral arguments and was left with no choice but to allow polls to proceed due to "legal practicality and necessity."
Veteran election lawyer Romulo Macalintal and six other lawyers earlier asked high court to outlaw Republic Act 11935, which moved BSKE to Oct. 30, 2023 from original date of Dec. 5, 2022.
Decision , penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho, stressed constitutionally guaranteed right to vote "requires holding of genuine periodic elections, which must be held at intervals which are not unduly long, and which ensure authority of government continues to be based on free expression of will of electors."
While SC noted Congress did not "unconstitutionally" encroach on power of Commission on Elections when it enacted RA 11935, justices found " law unconstitutionally exceeds bounds of Congress' power to legislate."
SC has upheld several decisions of tSandiganbayan that dismissed ill-gotten wealth cases against Marcos family.
In decision made public in July, SC affirmed dismissal of civil case against family of late strongman Ferdinand Marcos Sr. involving P1.052 billion in alleged ill-gotten wealth, citing insufficient evidence presented by Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
High tribunal's First Division denied for lack of merit motion for review on certiorari filed by PCGG against Sandiganbayan, which dismissed on Sept. 25, 2018 civil forfeiture case against Marcos family and their cronies.
SC decision, written by Justice Ricardo Rosario, affirmed ruling, saying Sandiganbayan "was correct in dismissing expanded complaint" sought to seize personal assets of Marcos and his wife Imelda, including expensive artworks, clothes, shoes and jewelry as well as real estate properties worth "billions of pesos" in New York.
PCGG filed forfeiture case in 1987 to recover assets and properties from Marcos family and their alleged cronies, composed of P609.27 million in shares of stocks and P443.05 million in real properties.
There are several public interest cases SC has yet to decide on, including petitions questioning constitutionality of no-contact apprehension policy (NCAP) and those challenging legality of transfer of P125 million of confidential funds to the Office of the Vice President in December 2022.
In January, SC wrapped up debate on legality of NCAP as due process rights, right to privacy of traffic violators, potential retrenchment of traffic enforcers and traffic law enforcement potentially given to private sector were questioned.
Meanwhile, SC has yet to tackle petitions challenging constitutionality of so-called confidential funds given to OVP last year, as it looks into consolidating petitions filed against it.
According to Gesmundo SC is currently waiting for respondents, including Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin and Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman, to file their respective comments regarding petitions.
Gesmundo added SC will also determine whether oral arguments are needed before resolving petitions that challenge legality of the Office of the President's move to allow budget department to release P125 million in confidential funds to OVP in December last year, which was reportedly spent in just 11 days.
SC has ordered Duterte to respond to first petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment