By Rey Panaligan
Ten incumbent associate justices of the Supreme Court (SC) are appointees of President Duterte.
Supreme Court (MANILA BULLETIN)
This is on top of the appointment and promotion of then-Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta as Chief Justice and head of the country’s judiciary.
On or before January 21, the President is mandated by the Constitution to appoint another SC associate justice to fill up the post vacated by Peralta last October 23.
This means that by next month, the 15-member SC would be dominated by 11 appointees of the President, aside from Peralta, and the group would constitute more than the majority in the SC’s membership.
As of today, December 27, the 10 Duterte appointees, in the order of seniority, are Associate Justices Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes Jr., Alexander G. Gesmundo, Jose C. Reyes Jr., Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Rosmari D. Carandang, Amy C. Lazaro Javier, Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Rodil V. Zalameda, Mario V. Lopez, and Edgardo L. Delos Angeles.
Some cause-oriented and advocacy groups have expressed apprehensions and asked: Will this scenario affect the independence of the judiciary, particularly the SC? Will the SC be fair in exercising its power of review involving legal and constitutional issues that may be raised against the President’s policies, programs, and executive orders?
In an interview, Chief Justice Peralta declared: “Every Supreme Court magistrate and those in the lower courts vow to preserve the independence of the judiciary, adhere to the tenets of the Constitution, and uphold the Rule of Law. Once a magistrate takes his or her oath, his or her fealty is to the Constitution, not to the appointing authority.”
Peralta is expected to head the judiciary until his mandatory retirement on March 27, 2022 at 70 years old. He replaced then Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin who mandatorily retired last October 18.
10-point program
Immediately after he assumed the highest post in the judiciary, Peralta laid down a 10-point program that would govern his term as Chief Justice.
De-clogging of court dockets
Peralta said the de-clogging of the courts’ dockets, from the SC down to the lowest courts, is one of his priority programs.
A check with Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez showed that as of December 2018, there were 8,852 pending cases with the SC; 19,732 with the Court of Appeals (CA); 5,237 with the Sandiganbayan; 1,353 with the Court of Tax Appeal (CTA); 546,182 with the regional trial courts (RTCs) and 160,153 with the first level courts like municipal courts and metropolitan trial courts.
To achieve the de-clogging of court dockets, Peralta said clerks of court in the SC “will be required to conduct periodic inventory of all the cases pending in their divisions and consult with the court en banc (full court) as to how to solve the issue of backlog and other concerns.”
Peralta’s other programs:
- Implementation of the duly-revised rules of court and the continuous revision of the rules of court and other rules of procedure to be more responsive to the needs of court users.
- Automation of court processes and incorporation of court technology in hearing and trial.
- Continuation of the weeding out of misfits from the judiciary and adoption of a system where court may initiate on its own the investigation of cases being handled by members of the judiciary even in the absence of complaints.
- Strengthening of the Office of the Court Administrator which supervises all lower courts and the implementation of the judicial integrity board.
- Strengthening of policies and guidelines on the security of justices, judges, and halls of justice nationwide.
- Setting up of a “help desk” in the Office of the Chief Justice and other offices to receive the concerns of court users.
- Monitoring of performance in all courts especially for the observance of the rules on hearing dates, including the observance of reglementary and prescribed periods to resolve pending incidents.
- Improvement of procurement and bidding processes for faster and timely implementation of projects.
- Creation of a strategic planning management unit for the organized planning implementation, monitoring and evaluation of court projects geared towards court specified goals that are aligned to the country's national development plans.
“To achieve our goals and aspirations, each and everyone in the judiciary must be guided by this motto: Let us be united and let us follow the rules,” he also said.
Prominent SC rulings
This report summarizes some of the most prominent rulings issued by the SC from January this year. The rulings are on press freedom, family, politics, environment, peace and order, and business.
Last January 4, the SC declared that while the freedom of the press enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection, the exercise of such right may be regulated “so as not to be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, or injurious to the rights of the community or society.”
With this ruling that affirmed the 2013 Court of Appeals (CA) decision, the SC dismissed the P10-million damage suit filed against the government by 37 broadcast and print journalists who were arrested while covering the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege in Makati City in 2007.
The SC said: “… such valued freedom is not absolute and unfettered at all times and under all circumstances. The realities of life in a complex society preclude an absolute exercise of the freedoms of speech and of the press. They are not immune to regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power”
The petition to allow same-sex marriage in the country was dismissed by the SC with a ruling that there was no justiciable issue presented and, more importantly, the matter should be addressed to Congress.
“While acknowledging that ‘from its plain text, the Constitution does not define, or restrict, marriage on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identify or expression,’ the SC’s decision dismissed the petition on account of his lack of standing, violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts, and failure to raise an actual, justiciable controversy.
On case involving family and children, the SC ruled that the “legitimacy and filiation of children cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for correction of entries in the certificate of live birth.”
It said a case on the legitimacy and filiation of a child is governed by Article 171 of the Family Code, while a case on the correction of entries in the certificate of live birth is under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Subjects of correction of entries are those on births, marriage, deaths, legal separations, judgments or annulment of marriage, judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning, legitimations, adoptions, acknowledgments of natural children, naturalization, election or loss or recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction, voluntary emancipation of a minor, and changes of name.
On politics, specifically the election protest filed by former Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong”Marcos Jr. against Vice President Maria Leonor “Leni” G. Robredo, the SC – sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) – announced last October “there is no ruling yet.”
After its October 15 session as PET, the SC ordered the release to the parties of the report on the recount, revision and appreciation of ballot in the three provinces – Iloilo, Camarines Sur, and Negros Oriental -- identified by Marcos as pilot areas in his protest, and for them to file their respective comment.
The parties were also ordered to submit their respective memorandum in 20 days from receipt of the PET resolution on Marcos’s motion to nullify the results in the three ARMM provinces – Lanao del Sur, Basilan, and Maguindanao.
The manual recount and revision of ballots in 1,400 boxes from 5,418 clustered precincts in the three provinces were finished by the PET last year.
Marcos protested the results in 132,446 precincts in 27 provinces and cities. Robredo filed a counter-protest against Marcos involving 31,278 precincts. The two cases had been consolidated by the PET.
Based on the 2016 election results, Robredo was declared winner in the vice-presidential race with 14,418,817 votes or 263,473 more than the 14,155,344 votes garnered by Marcos.
In another case, the SC ruled that immunity from civil or criminal case of an incumbent President does not extend to his alter egos as it dismissed the petition for review filed by former Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) chairman Camilo L. Sabio whose conviction for graft was affirmed.
The SC said on Sabio’s case: “Sabio cannot claim immunity from suit for being an alter ego of the President. It was the PCGG, through Sabio and his Commissioners, not the President, who entered into the subject lease agreements without the requisite public bidding. It will be ridiculous to hold that alter egos of the President are, likewise, immune from suit simply because their acts are considered acts of the President if not repudiated. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser.”
On term limit, the SC said the conversion of a municipality into a city does not interrupt the term of office of the incumbent elected officials or affect the three-term limit imposed on them by the Constitution.
This means that if a town mayor has served for three consecutive terms or for nine consecutive years and in between his or her terms the municipality was converted into a city, he or she cannot run again for mayor for another term.
On cases involving the environment, the SC ordered Maynilad Water Services, Inc., Manila Water Co., Inc., and the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) to pay a fine of more than P1.84 billion for violation of the Philippine Clean Water Act since 2009.
It also ordered the two water firms and the MWSS to pay a fine of P322,102 for every day of non-compliance with the law.
The two firms and MWSS were found to have violated Section 8 of the Philippine Clean Water Act enacted in 2004 under Republic Act No. 9275.
Section 8 of the law provides: “Within five (5) years following the effectivity of this Act, the agency vested to provide water supply and sewerage facilities and/or concessionaires in Metro Manila and other highly urbanized cities (HUCs) as defined in Republic Act No. 7160, in coordination with LGUs, shall be required to connect the existing sewage line found in all subdivisions, condominiums, commercial centers, hotels, sports and recreational facilities, hospitals, market places, public buildings, industrial complex and other similar establishments including households to available sewerage system.”
Boracay
In another case, the SC declared constitutional President Duterte’s Proclamation No. 475 which closed Boracay Island to tourists and non-residents for six months from April 26 to October 25 in 2018.
The re-opening of Boracay Island on Oct. 26, 2018 could have made the petition moot and academic. But the SC decided to rule on the merits of the case.
The SC decision, in effect, upheld the position of the government that the six-month closure of Boracay Island did not violate the Constitution, particularly on the rights to travel and due process.
Martial law extension
On peace and order, the SC upheld the constitutionality of the third extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao until Dec. 31, 2019.
The Dec. 31, 2019 extension was the third since martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus were first imposed by the President on May 23, 2017 for 60 days through Proclamation No. 216 as a result of the attack in Marawi City by the Maute Group and its followers.
When challenged before the SC, the High Court ruled in July 2017 on the constitutionality of the President’s proclamation with a declaration that Proclamation No. 216 has sufficient factual bases.
In February 2018, the SC declared constitutional President Duterte’s extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao until Dec. 31, 2018.
The SC ruled: “The President and Congress had sufficient factual bases to extend Proclamation No. 216. The rebellion that spawned the Marawi incident persists. Public safety requires the extension, as shown by facts presented by the AFP” (Armed Forces of the Philippines).”
Indigenous cultural communities
Members of indigenous cultural communities cannot invoke their own customary laws and practices to evade prosecution for criminal offenses filed before regular courts of law, the SC ruled.
It said that Republic Act No. 8371, the 1997 Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA), does not strip the courts of jurisdiction over criminal cases filed against indigenous people.
“A set of customary laws and practices is effective only within the confines of the specific indigenous cultural community that adopted and adheres to it,” the SC stressed.
Monopolies
Last August, the SC declared final its decision that ordered the conduct of competitive selection process (CSP) on all power supply agreements (PSAs) submitted by the country’s power distribution utilities (DUs) on or after June 30, 2015 “to prevent monopolies that result in exorbitant electricity rates.”
In its May 3, 2019 decision, the SC also ruled that “upon compliance with the CSP, the power purchase cost resulting from such compliance shall retroact to the date of effectivity of the complying PSA, but in no case earlier than 30 June 2015, for purposes of passing on the power purchase cost to consumers.”
“… in the absence of CSP, there is no transparency in the purchase by DUs of electric power, and thus there is no assurance of the reasonableness of the power rates charged to consumers. As a consequence, all PSA applications submitted to the ERC on or after 30 June 2015 should be deemed not submitted and should be made to comply with CSP,” the SC stressed.
Tax case
Last July, the SC ruled that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) cannot collect P9.57 billion in value-added tax (VAT) for 2008 from the Power Sector Asset and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) for the sale of the National Power Corporation’s (NPC) power generating assets.
The SC granted PSALM’s petition which challenged the Dec. 2, 2014 ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in favor of the BIR.
The SC junked the CTA findings that the sale of the generating assets of PSALM – notably the Masinloc, Ambuklao-Binga, and Pantanbangan power plants – fall under "all kinds of goods and properties" subject to VAT under Section 106 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC).
Club fees
In another tax case, the SC ruled that membership fees, assessment dues, and other fees collected by clubs which are organized and operated exclusively for pleasure, recreation and other non-profit purposes are not subject to income and value added taxes.
Such dues and fees “do not constitute as ‘the income of recreational clubs from whatever source’ that are ‘subject to income tax’ and part of the ‘gross receipts of recreational clubs’ that are subject to value added tax (VAT),” the SC said.
“… for as long as these membership fees, assessment dues, and the like are treated as collections by recreational clubs from their members as an inherent consequence of their membership, and are, by nature, intended for the maintenance, preservation, and upkeep of the clubs' general operations and facilities, then these fees cannot be classified as ‘the income of recreational clubs from whatever source’ that are ‘subject to income tax.’ Instead, they only form part of capital from which no income tax may be collected or imposed,” the SC said.
Starting last September 2, the SC has deleted the payment of P500 mediation fees for those who will file small claims cases ranging from P300,000 to P400,000 before the first-level trial courts nationwide.
The deletion of the mediation fees was approved by the SC on recommendation submitted by then Associate Justice Peralta, chair of the SC’s committee on the revision of rules.
Peralta said the removal of the fees will ease the financial burden for litigants in small claims cases filed before the metropolitan trial courts (MTCs), metropolitan trial courts in cities (MTCCs), municipal trial courts (MTCs), and municipal circuit trial courts (MCTCs).
Under the rule, the first-level courts are mandated to resolve small claims cases within 30 days from the day the statement of claim was filed. Lawyers are not allowed to represent a party in small claims cases.
Last April, the limit for small claims cases was increased by the SC from P300,000 to P400,000 for cases filed before the MTCs, also on recommendation of Peralta.