Sunday, April 22, 2012

Constitutional Law

Presidential Proclamation of Martial Law and Suspension of the Privilege of Habeas Corpus.
Prudence and respect for the co-equal departments of the government dictate that the Court should be cautious in entertaining actions that assail the constitutionality of the acts of the Executive or the Legislative department. Under the 1987 Constitution the President and the Congress act in tandem in exercising the power to proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. They exercise the power, not sequentially, but in a sense jointly since, after the President has initiated the proclamation or the suspension, only Congress can maintain the same based on its own evaluation of the situation on the ground, a power that the President does not have. Consequently, although the Constitution reserves to the Supreme Court the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that the Court must allow Congress to exercise its own review powers, which is automatic rather than initiated. Only when Congress defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution through such review should the Supreme Court step in as its final rampart. The constitutional validity of the President's proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a political question in the hands of Congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court (see decision on consolidated cases, re: Constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation of Martial Law and the Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Province of Maguindanao. March 20, 2012).

Monday, April 16, 2012

Determination of Just Compensation, a judicial function

Although a law may suggest or provide a method or formula to be used in determining the value of expropriated properties or just compensation, the value arrived at in applying it is not and should not be considered final and absolute. No law can deprive the courts of the power to review, alter, or modify the amount arrived at if they believe it to be unfair or unjust. The final determination of the proper amount of compensation still rests upon the court.
If the issue of just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA6657), as amended, it should be computed in accordance with the said law, although the property was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Court and Sheriff's Fees

Since the payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court concerning pleading, practice and procedure, it cannot be validly annulled, changed or modified by Congress. As one of the safeguards of the Supreme Court's constitutional independence, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the Supreme Court's exclusive domain. That power is no longer shared by the Supreme Court with Congress, much less with the Executive. The separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of our government has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of the Supreme Court. Fiscal autonomy recognizes the power and authority of the Supreme Court to levy, assess and collect fees, including legal fees, such as the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF). These funds guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy. Any exemption from the payment of legal fees granted by the Congress to government-owned or controlled corporations and local government units will necessarily reduce JDF and SAJF. Such a situation is constitutionally infirm for it impairs the Supreme Court's guaranteed fiscal autonomy and erodes its independence (A.M. No. 12-2-03-0, March 13 2012. En Banc).

errors committed in the exercise of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is vested by law and is determined by the material allegations in the complaint. Indeed, when a court, tribunal or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction and, hence, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.

Monday, April 9, 2012

opportunity to be heard

In Administrative and Quasi-Judicial proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side suffices to meet the requirements of due process. The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and real opportunity to be heard. It simply means opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.

mode of appeal from DARAB decision

Section 60 of RA6657 clearly states that the modality of recourse from decisions or orders of the Special Agrarian Court is by petition for review. This section is to be read in relation to RA7902, which expanded the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to include exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions. The Supreme Court issued Circular No. 1-95 governing appeals from all quasi-judicial bodies to the Court of Appeals by petition for review regardless of the nature of the question raised. Hence, it is Rule 43 of the Rules of Court that must govern the procedure for judicial review of decisions, orders or resolutions of the DARAB. An appeal taken to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by a wrong or inappropriate mode warrants a dismissal.