Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Proscribed then are, inter alia, the Before us is a petition for review
use of foul language which ridicules the on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court assailing the November 14, 2002
high esteem for the courts, creates or
Resolution[1] of the Court of Appeals in
promotes distrust in judicial CA-G.R. SP No. 71460[2] which dismissed
administration, or tends to undermine the the petition for certiorari filed by
confidence of the people in the integrity of petitioner; and the January 16, 2003
the members of this Court and to degrade Resolution[3] denying petitioners motion
the administration of justice by this Court; for reconsideration.
or offensive, abusive and abrasive The antecedents of the case as
summarized by the labor arbiter are as
language; or disrespectful, offensive,
follows:
manifestly baseless and malicious Complainant [Eddie Endaya] alleged that
statements in pleadings or in a letter he was employed by respondent
company on January 18, 1993, [as a] car suspended for acts of insubordination on
painter with a salary of P8,000.00 a August 23, 1999, when he did not follow
month for work performed from 7:30 A.M. instruction of the company president who
to 5:15 P.M., Monday to Friday; that asked him to help and assist a co-worker
before March 1, 1999, he requested and instead turned his back on the
management that his SSS premiums president as if he heard nothing; that
already deducted from his salary be complainant was also warned of several
remitted to the SSS but management did offenses, such as (a) negligence in the
not pay attention to his request; that on performance of his work in quality and
March 29, 1999, he filed a complaint with efficiency, for doing a below par painting
the Social Security System against job, (b) evading work by leaving the
respondent company for failure to remit working area without permission of his
his SSS premiums; that when superior, (c) showing no interest in his
management learned about his work, (d) not cooperating or supporting
complaint, he was reprimanded and co-employees during work, and (e)
became the object of harassment; that he cutting short working time; that when
was shouted at and belittled; that on complainant returned to work on
August 27, 1999, he at first refused to September 6, 1999, after his suspension,
paint the trusses of the newly-constructed he was observed to be working
building, an extension of office of halfheartedly, did not cooperate with his
respondent company because his co-employees and did not follow
position is that of a car painter, not that of instructions of his superiors for which
a construction worker and besides he respondent called his attention in a
finds difficulty working in high places as Memorandum dated September 6, 1999;
he was not trained for the purpose; but, that after he received the Memorandum,
later, he consented to do the painting job; complainant never reported for work; and
that at about 11:00 A.M., he felt thirsty, so that respondent sent a Memorandum
he went down to drink; but when he was requiring complainant to explain his
about to go back to work, Mr. Andy absences from work, which Memorandum
Junginger who asked him where he came was received by complainants wife on
from got irked when told that he September, 28, 1999; and that thereafter,
(complainant) went down to drink and, nothing was heard of the complainant.
immediately, told complainant to get his
separation pay from the Cashier and go Further, respondents alleged that
home as he was already terminated. deductions from complainants salary
were amounts authorized by law or with
Complainant also alleged that on the authority of complainant; that he was
September 6, 1999, he reported for work paid his holiday pay, five (5) days service
but he was surprised that Mr. Joseph incentive leave pay, 13th month pay for
Baclig handed him letters of suspension, 1999 and vacation and sick leaves; that
dated August 27, 1999 and September 6, complainant has unpaid cash advances
1999 and he was told to go home; that he in the total amount of P8,600.00 secured
reported for work several times thereafter from May, 1998 to May, 1999 for
but he was told to stop reporting for work enrollment of his children, hospitalization
since his services were already of his parents, medicine and other
terminated as of August 27, 1999. personal family needs; that his sick leave,
vacation leave and incentive leave had
Complainant, thus, contends that he was been fully paid by way of cash advances
illegally dismissed. given to him on July 5, 1999, for the
death of his father.
Controverting complainants allegations,
respondents averred that complainant Respondents contended that complainant
was employed, as painter, on January 18, was never dismissed but he was the one
1993, with a salary of P8,000.00; that he who voluntarily left the company after his
was performing well in the first years in attention was called by management to
his employment but in the later years, his inefficiency and bad attitude toward
particularly in July and August 1999, he his co-employees and superiors, which is
became lazy, inefficient and hardheaded; chaotic and disorderly and troublesome;
that on August 27, 1999, after an and that respondents offered to accept
investigation, complainant was complainant back during the preliminary
conference but he declined the offer and
demanded payment of backwages and to We note, however, that complainant has
be allowed to finish his painting job filed a complaint with the Department of
contract. Labor and Employment, National Capital
Region, on August 30, 1999, charging the
Respondents, thus, contend that respondents of illegal dismissal (Annex F,
complainant was never dismissed.[4] ibid.). Summons was issued by the Chief,
Industrial Relations Division of DOLE-
On January 8, 2001, the Labor Arbiter NCR on September 13, 1999, ordering
rendered judgment in favor of herein the parties to appear at the DOLE-NCR
respondent, ratiocinating as follows: on September 24, 1999, at 10:00 A.M.
On the first issue whether or not There is, thus, good reason to believe
complainant was illegally dismissed it has that the said Memorandum, dated
invariably been ruled by the Supreme September 15, 1999, was issued by
Court that, in termination cases, the respondent Junginger for the purpose of
burden of proof rests on the respondent justifying the prior illegal dismissal of
to show that the dismissal is for a just complainant.
cause and when there is no showing of a
clear, valid and legal cause for the Besides, abandonment is inconsistent
termination of employment, the law with the filing of a complaint for illegal
considers that matter a case of illegal dismissal seeking reinstatement, as in
dismissal. (See Cosep, et. al. vs. NLRC, this case.
et. al., G. R. No. 124960, June 6, 1998).
As regards respondents charges of
In this case, the respondents contend absenteeism, painting job contract, bad
that complainant abandoned his work and attitude towards co-employees and
submitted in evidence a Memorandum superior and alleged bad working habits,
dated September 15, 1999 (Annex E, suffice it to state that complainant was not
Position Paper for respondent), stating: asked to explain his said offenses and,
therefore, the same cannot constitute as
Date: September 15, 1999 valid causes for dismissal of the
To : EDDIE D. ENDAYA complainant.
From: EBERHARD JUNGINGER
Memo: Absence from work From all the foregoing, it is clear that
complainant did not abandon his work
and respondent has no just or authorized
cause to terminate the services of the
Since the time you had received the complainant.[5]
memo dated September 6, 1999
you choose not to report for work since
then, and you did not also reply this The dispositive portion of the Labor
memo as required. Arbiters decision reads:
Locus standi or legal standing or has The difference between the rule on
been defined as a personal and standing and real party in interest has
substantial interest in the case such that been noted by authorities thus: It is
the party has sustained or will sustain important to note . . . that standing
direct injury as a result of the because of its constitutional and public
governmental act that is being policy underpinnings, is very different
challenged. The gist of the question of from questions relating to whether a
standing is whether a party alleges such particular plaintiff is the real party in
personal stake in the outcome of the interest or has capacity to sue. Although
controversy as to assure that concrete all three requirements are directed
adverseness which sharpens the towards ensuring that only certain parties
presentation of issues upon which the can maintain an action, standing
court depends for illumination of difficult restrictions require a partial consideration
constitutional questions.[69] of the merits, as well as broader policy
concerns relating to the proper role of the entitled or that he is about to be
judiciary in certain areas. subjected to some burdens or penalties
by reason of the statute or act
Standing is a special concern in complained of.[77] In fine, when the
constitutional law because in some cases proceeding involves the assertion of a
suits are brought not by parties who have public right,[78] the mere fact that he is a
been personally injured by the operation citizen satisfies the requirement of
of a law or by official action taken, but by personal interest.
concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters
In the case of a taxpayer, he is
who actually sue in the public interest.
allowed to sue where there is a claim that
Hence the question in standing is
public funds are illegally disbursed, or
whether such parties have alleged such a
that public money is being deflected to
personal stake in the outcome of the
any improper purpose, or that there is a
controversy as to assure that concrete
wastage of public funds through the
adverseness which sharpens the
enforcement of an invalid or
presentation of issues upon which the [79]
unconstitutional law. Before he can
court so largely depends for illumination
invoke the power of judicial review,
of difficult constitutional questions.
however, he must specifically prove that
he has sufficient interest in preventing the
On the other hand, the question as to
illegal expenditure of money raised by
"real party in interest" is whether he is the
taxation and that he would sustain a
party who would be benefited or injured
direct injury as a result of the
by the judgment, or the 'party entitled to
enforcement of the questioned statute or
the avails of the suit.[76](Citations omitted)
contract. It is not sufficient that he has
merely a general interest common to all
While rights personal to the Chief
members of the public.[80]
Justice may have been injured by the
alleged unconstitutional acts of the House At all events, courts are vested with
of Representatives, none of the discretion as to whether or not a
petitioners before us asserts a violation of taxpayer's suit should be entertained.
[81]
the personal rights of the Chief Justice. This Court opts to grant standing to
On the contrary, they invariably invoke most of the petitioners, given their
the vindication of their own rights as allegation that any impending transmittal
taxpayers; members of to the Senate of the Articles of
Congress;citizens, individually or in a Impeachment and the ensuing trial of the
class suit; and members of the bar and of Chief Justice will necessarily involve the
the legal profession which were expenditure of public funds.
supposedly violated by the alleged
As for a legislator, he is allowed to
unconstitutional acts of the House of
sue to question the validity of any official
Representatives.
action which he claims infringes his
In a long line of cases, however, prerogatives as a legislator.[82] Indeed, a
concerned citizens, taxpayers and member of the House of Representatives
legislators when specific requirements has standing to maintain inviolate the
have been met have been given standing prerogatives, powers and privileges
by this Court. vested by the Constitution in his office. [83]
When suing as a citizen, the interest While an association has legal
of the petitioner assailing the personality to represent its members,
[84]
constitutionality of a statute must be especially when it is composed of
direct and personal. He must be able to substantial taxpayers and the outcome
show, not only that the law or any will affect their vital interests, [85] the mere
government act is invalid, but also that he invocation by the Integrated Bar of the
sustained or is in imminent danger of Philippines or any member of the legal
sustaining some direct injury as a result profession of the duty to preserve the rule
of its enforcement, and not merely that he of law and nothing more, although
suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It undoubtedly true, does not suffice to
must appear that the person complaining clothe it with standing. Its interest is too
has been or is about to be denied some general. It is shared by other groups and
right or privilege to which he is lawfully the whole citizenry. However, a reading of
the petitions shows that it has advanced mean that the requirement that a party
constitutional issues which deserve the should have an interest in the matter is
attention of this Court in view of their totally eliminated. A party must, at the
seriousness, novelty and weight as very least, still plead the existence of
precedents.[86] It, therefore, behooves this such interest, it not being one of which
Court to relax the rules on standing and courts can take judicial notice. In
to resolve the issues presented by it. petitioner Vallejos case, he failed to
allege any interest in the case. He does
In the same vein, when dealing
not thus have standing.
with class suits filed in behalf of all
citizens, persons intervening must be With respect to the motions for
sufficiently numerous to fully protect the intervention, Rule 19, Section 2 of the
interests of all concerned[87] to enable the Rules of Court requires an intervenor to
court to deal properly with all interests possess a legal interest in the matter in
involved in the suit,[88] for a judgment in a litigation, or in the success of either of the
class suit, whether favorable or parties, or an interest against both, or is
unfavorable to the class, is, under the res so situated as to be adversely affected by
judicata principle, binding on all members a distribution or other disposition of
of the class whether or not they were property in the custody of the court or of
before the court.[89] Where it clearly an officer thereof. While intervention is
appears that not all interests can be not a matter of right, it may be permitted
sufficiently represented as shown by the by the courts when the applicant shows
divergent issues raised in the numerous facts which satisfy the requirements of
petitions before this Court, G.R. No. the law authorizing intervention.[92]
160365 as a class suit ought to fail. Since
In Intervenors Attorneys Romulo
petitioners additionallyallege standing as
Macalintal and Pete Quirino Quadras
citizens and taxpayers, however, their
case, they seek to join petitioners
petition will stand.
Candelaria, et. al. in G.R. No. 160262.
The Philippine Bar Association, in Since, save for one additional issue, they
G.R. No. 160403, invokes the sole raise the same issues and the same
ground of transcendental importance, standing, and no objection on the part of
while Atty. Dioscoro U. Vallejos, in G.R. petitioners Candelaria, et. al. has been
No. 160397, is mum on his standing. interposed, this Court as earlier stated,
granted the Motion for Leave of Court to
There being no doctrinal definition of
Intervene and Petition-in-Intervention.
transcendental importance, the following
instructive determinants formulated by Nagmamalasakit na mga
former Supreme Court Justice Florentino Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang
P. Feliciano are instructive: (1) the Pilipino, Inc., et. al. sought to join
character of the funds or other assets petitioner Francisco in G.R. No.
involved in the case; (2) the presence of 160261. Invoking their right as citizens to
a clear case of disregard of a intervene, alleging that they will suffer if
constitutional or statutory prohibition by this insidious scheme of the minority
the public respondent agency or members of the House of
instrumentality of the government; and (3) Representatives is successful, this Court
the lack of any other party with a more found the requisites for intervention had
direct and specific interest in raising the been complied with.
questions being raised.[90] Applying these
Alleging that the issues raised in the
determinants, this Court is satisfied that
petitions in G.R. Nos. 160261, 160262,
the issues raised herein are indeed of
160263, 160277, 160292, 160295, and
transcendental importance.
160310 were of transcendental
In not a few cases, this Court has in importance, World War II Veterans
fact adopted a liberal attitude on Legionnaires of the Philippines, Inc. filed
the locus standi of a petitioner where the a Petition-in-Intervention with Leave to
petitioner is able to craft an issue of Intervene to raise the additional issue of
transcendental significance to the people, whether or not the second impeachment
as when the issues raised are of complaint against the Chief Justice is
paramount importance to the public. valid and based on any of the grounds
[91]
Such liberality does not, however, prescribed by the Constitution.
Finding that Nagmamalasakit na mga In praying for the dismissal of the
Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang petitions, Soriano failed even to allege
Pilipino, Inc., et al. and World War II that the act of petitioners will result in
Veterans Legionnaires of the Philippines, illegal disbursement of public funds or in
Inc. possess a legal interest in the matter public money being deflected to any
in litigation the respective motions to improper purpose. Additionally, his mere
intervene were hereby granted. interest as a member of the Bar does not
suffice to clothe him with standing.
Senator Aquilino Pimentel, on the
other hand, sought to intervene for the Ripeness and Prematurity
limited purpose of making of record and
In Tan v. Macapagal,[95] this Court,
arguing a point of view that differs with
through Chief Justice Fernando, held that
Senate President Drilons. He alleges that
for a case to be considered ripe for
submitting to this Courts jurisdiction as
adjudication, it is a prerequisite that
the Senate President does will undermine
something had by then been
the independence of the Senate which
accomplished or performed by either
will sit as an impeachment court once the
branch before a court may come into the
Articles of Impeachment are transmitted
picture.[96] Only then may the courts pass
to it from the House of Representatives.
on the validity of what was done, if and
Clearly, Senator Pimentel possesses a
when the latter is challenged in an
legal interest in the matter in litigation, he
appropriate legal proceeding.
being a member of Congress against
which the herein petitions are directed. The instant petitions raise in the main
For this reason, and to fully ventilate all the issue of the validity of the filing of the
substantial issues relating to the matter at second impeachment complaint against
hand, his Motion to Intervene was the Chief Justice in accordance with the
granted and he was, as earlier stated, House Impeachment Rules adopted by
allowed to argue. the 12th Congress, the constitutionality of
which is questioned. The questioned acts
Lastly, as to Jaime N. Sorianos
having been carried out, i.e., the second
motion to intervene, the same must be
impeachment complaint had been filed
denied for, while he asserts an interest as
with the House of Representatives and
a taxpayer, he failed to meet the standing
the 2001 Rules have already been
requirement for bringing taxpayers suits
already promulgated and enforced, the
as set forth in Dumlao v. Comelec,[93] to
prerequisite that the alleged
wit:
unconstitutional act should be
accomplished and performed before suit,
x x x While, concededly, the elections to
as Tan v. Macapagal holds, has been
be held involve the expenditure of public
complied with.
moneys, nowhere in their Petition do said
petitioners allege that their tax money is Related to the issue of ripeness is the
being extracted and spent in violation of question of whether the instant petitions
specific constitutional protection against are premature. Amicus curiae former
abuses of legislative power, or that there Senate President Jovito R. Salonga
is a misapplication of such funds by opines that there may be no urgent need
respondent COMELEC, or that public for this Court to render a decision at this
money is being deflected to any improper time, it being the final arbiter on questions
purpose. Neither do petitioners seek to of constitutionality anyway. He thus
restrain respondent from wasting public recommends that all remedies in the
funds through the enforcement of an House and Senate should first be
invalid or unconstitutional law. exhausted.
[94]
(Citations omitted)
Taking a similar stand is Dean Raul
Pangalangan of the U.P. College of Law
who suggests to this Court to take judicial
notice of on-going attempts to encourage
signatories to the second impeachment
complaint to withdraw their signatures
and opines that the House Impeachment
Rules provide for an opportunity for
members to raise constitutional questions
themselves when the Articles of Prior to the 1973 Constitution, without
Impeachment are presented on a motion consistency and seemingly without any
to transmit to the same to the rhyme or reason, this Court vacillated on
Senate. The dean maintains that even its stance of taking cognizance of cases
assuming that the Articles are transmitted which involved political questions. In
to the Senate, the Chief Justice can raise some cases, this Court hid behind the
the issue of their constitutional infirmity by cover of the political question doctrine
way of a motion to dismiss. and refused to exercise its power of
judicial review.[100] In other cases,
The deans position does not
however, despite the seeming political
persuade. First, the withdrawal by the
nature of the therein issues involved, this
Representatives of their signatures would
Court assumed jurisdiction whenever it
not, by itself, cure the House
found constitutionally imposed limits on
Impeachment Rules of their constitutional
powers or functions conferred upon
infirmity. Neither would such a withdrawal,
political bodies.[101] Even in the landmark
by itself, obliterate the questioned second
1988 case of Javellana v. Executive
impeachment complaint since it would
Secretary[102] which raised the issue of
only place it under the ambit of Sections
whether the 1973 Constitution was
3(2) and (3) of Article XI of the
ratified, hence, in force, this Court
Constitution[97] and, therefore, petitioners
shunted the political question doctrine
would continue to suffer their injuries.
and took cognizance thereof. Ratification
Second and most importantly, the by the people of a Constitution is a
futility of seeking remedies from either or political question, it being a question
both Houses of Congress before coming decided by the people in their sovereign
to this Court is shown by the fact that, as capacity.
previously discussed, neither the House
The frequency with which this Court
of Representatives nor the Senate is
invoked the political question doctrine to
clothed with the power to rule with
refuse to take jurisdiction over certain
definitiveness on the issue of
cases during the Marcos regime
constitutionality, whether concerning
motivated Chief Justice Concepcion,
impeachment proceedings or otherwise,
when he became a Constitutional
as said power is exclusively vested in the
Commissioner, to clarify this Courts
judiciary by the earlier quoted Section I,
power of judicial review and its
Article VIII of the Constitution. Remedy
application on issues involving political
cannot be sought from a body which is
questions, viz:
bereft of power to grant it.
Justiciability MR. CONCEPCION. Thank you, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
In the leading case of Tanada v.
Cuenco,[98] Chief Justice Roberto
I will speak on the judiciary. Practically,
Concepcion defined the term political
everybody has made, I suppose, the
question, viz:
usual comment that the judiciary is the
weakest among the three major branches
[T]he term political question connotes, in
of the service. Since the legislature holds
legal parlance, what it means in ordinary
the purse and the executive the sword,
parlance, namely, a question of policy. In
the judiciary has nothing with which to
other words, in the language of Corpus
enforce its decisions or commands
Juris Secundum, it refers to those
except the power of reason and appeal to
questions which, under the Constitution,
conscience which, after all, reflects the
are to be decided by the people in their
will of God, and is the most powerful of all
sovereign capacity, or in regard to
other powers without exception. x x x And
which full discretionary authority has
so, with the bodys indulgence, I will
been delegated to the Legislature or
proceed to read the provisions drafted by
executive branch of the Government. It is
the Committee on the Judiciary.
concerned with issues dependent upon
the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
The first section starts with a sentence
measure.[99] (Italics in the original)
copied from former Constitutions. It says:
The judicial power shall be vested in one reason for the delay in its publication was
Supreme Court and in such lower courts that the administration had apprehended
as may be established by law. and detained prominent newsmen on
September 21. So that when martial law
I suppose nobody can question it. was announced on September 22, the
media hardly published anything about
The next provision is new in our it. In fact, the media could not publish any
constitutional law. I will read it first and story not only because our main writers
explain. were already incarcerated, but also
because those who succeeded them in
Judicial power includes the duty of courts their jobs were under mortal threat of
of justice to settle actual controversies being the object of wrath of the ruling
involving rights which are legally party. The 1971 Constitutional
demandable and enforceable and to Convention had begun on June 1, 1971
determine whether or not there has been and by September 21 or 22 had not
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to finished the Constitution; it had barely
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part agreed in the fundamentals of the
or instrumentality of the government. Constitution. I forgot to say that upon the
proclamation of martial law, some
Fellow Members of this Commission, this delegates to that 1971 Constitutional
is actually a product of our experience Convention, dozens of them, were picked
during martial law. As a matter of fact, it up. One of them was our very own
has some antecedents in the past, but colleague, Commissioner Calderon. So,
the role of the judiciary during the the unfinished draft of the Constitution
deposed regime was marred was taken over by representatives of
considerably by the circumstance that Malacaang.In 17 days, they finished what
in a number of cases against the the delegates to the 1971 Constitutional
government, which then had no legal Convention had been unable to
defense at all, the solicitor general set accomplish for about 14 months. The
up the defense of political questions draft of the 1973 Constitution was
and got away with it. As a presented to the President around
consequence, certain principles December 1, 1972, whereupon the
concerning particularly the writ President issued a decree calling a
of habeas corpus, that is, the authority plebiscite which suspended the operation
of courts to order the release of of some provisions in the martial law
political detainees, and other matters decree which prohibited discussions,
related to the operation and effect of much less public discussions of certain
martial law failed because the matters of public concern. The purpose
government set up the defense of was presumably to allow a free
political question. And the Supreme discussion on the draft of the Constitution
Court said: Well, since it is political, we on which a plebiscite was to be held
have no authority to pass upon it. The sometime in January 1973. If I may use a
Committee on the Judiciary feels that word famous by our colleague,
this was not a proper solution of the Commissioner Ople, during the
questions involved. It did not merely interregnum, however, the draft of the
request an encroachment upon the Constitution was analyzed and criticized
rights of the people, but it, in effect, with such a telling effect that Malacaang
encouraged further violations thereof felt the danger of its approval. So, the
during the martial law regime. I am President suspended indefinitely the
sure the members of the Bar are familiar holding of the plebiscite and announced
with this situation. But for the benefit of that he would consult the people in a
the Members of the Commission who are referendum to be held from January 10 to
not lawyers, allow me to explain. I will January 15. But the questions to be
start with a decision of the Supreme submitted in the referendum were not
Court in 1973 on the case of Javellana announced until the eve of its scheduled
vs. the Secretary of Justice, if I am not beginning, under the supposed
mistaken. Martial law was announced on supervision not of the Commission on
September 22, although the proclamation Elections, but of what was then
was dated September 21. The obvious designated as citizens assemblies or
barangays. Thus the barangays came
into existence. The questions to be question was set up. There have been
propounded were released with proposed a number of other cases in the past.
answers thereto, suggesting that it was
unnecessary to hold a plebiscite because x x x The defense of the political
the answers given in the referendum question was rejected because the
should be regarded as the votes cast in issue was clearly justiciable.
the plebiscite. Thereupon, a motion was
filed with the Supreme Court praying that x x x When your Committee on the
the holding of the referendum be Judiciary began to perform its functions, it
suspended. When the motion was being faced the following questions: What is
heard before the Supreme Court, the judicial power? What is a political
Minister of Justice delivered to the Court question?
a proclamation of the President declaring
that the new Constitution was already in The Supreme Court, like all other courts,
force because the overwhelming majority has one main function: to settle actual
of the votes cast in the referendum controversies involving conflicts of rights
favored the Constitution. Immediately which are demandable and
after the departure of the Minister of enforceable. There are rights which are
Justice, I proceeded to the session room guaranteed by law but cannot be
where the case was being heard. I then enforced by a judiciary party. In a decided
informed the Court and the parties the case, a husband complained that his wife
presidential proclamation declaring that was unwilling to perform her duties as a
the 1973 Constitution had been ratified by wife. The Court said: We can tell your
the people and is now in force. wife what her duties as such are and that
she is bound to comply with them, but we
A number of other cases were filed to cannot force her physically to discharge
declare the presidential proclamation her main marital duty to her
null and void. The main defense put up husband. There are some rights
by the government was that the issue guaranteed by law, but they are so
was a political question and that the personal that to enforce them by actual
court had no jurisdiction to entertain compulsion would be highly derogatory to
the case. human dignity.
The government said that in a This is why the first part of the second
referendum held from January 10 to paragraph of Section I provides that:
January 15, the vast majority ratified the
draft of the Constitution. Note that all Judicial power includes the duty of courts
members of the Supreme Court were to settle actual controversies involving
residents of Manila, but none of them had rights which are legally demandable or
been notified of any referendum in their enforceable . . .
respective places of residence, much less
did they participate in the alleged The courts, therefore, cannot entertain,
referendum. None of them saw any much less decide, hypothetical
referendum proceeding. questions. In a presidential system of
government, the Supreme Court has,
In the Philippines, even local gossips also another important function. The
spread like wild fire. So, a majority of the powers of government are generally
members of the Court felt that there had considered divided into three
been no referendum. branches: the Legislative, the
Executive and the Judiciary. Each one
Second, a referendum cannot substitute is supreme within its own sphere and
for a plebiscite. There is a big difference independent of the others. Because of
between a referendum and a that supremacy power to determine
plebiscite. But another group of whether a given law is valid or not is
justices upheld the defense that the vested in courts of justice.
issue was a political
question. Whereupon, they dismissed Briefly stated, courts of justice
the case. This is not the only major determine the limits of power of the
case in which the plea of political agencies and offices of the
government as well as those of its As pointed out by amicus curiae
officers. In other words, the judiciary former dean Pacifico Agabin of the UP
is the final arbiter on the question College of Law, this Court has in fact in a
whether or not a branch of number of cases taken jurisdiction over
government or any of its officials has questions which are not truly political
acted without jurisdiction or in excess following the effectivity of the present
of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to Constitution.
constitute an abuse of discretion
In Marcos v. Manglapus,[105] this
amounting to excess of jurisdiction or
Court, speaking through Madame Justice
lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a
Irene Cortes, held:
judicial power but a duty to pass
judgment on matters of this nature.
The present Constitution limits resort to
the political question doctrine and
This is the background of paragraph 2
broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into
of Section 1, which means that the
areas which the Court, under previous
courts cannot hereafter evade the duty
constitutions, would have normally left to
to settle matters of this nature, by
the political departments to decide.[106] x x
claiming that such matters constitute
x
a political question.
In Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon
I have made these extended remarks to
Committee,[107] through Justice Teodoro
the end that the Commissioners may
Padilla, this Court declared:
have an initial food for thought on the
subject of the judiciary.[103] (Italics in the
The "allocation of constitutional
original; emphasis supplied)
boundaries" is a task that this Court must
perform under the Constitution. Moreover,
During the deliberations of the
as held in a recent case, (t)he political
Constitutional Commission, Chief Justice
question doctrine neither interposes
Concepcion further clarified the concept
an obstacle to judicial determination of
of judicial power, thus:
the rival claims. The jurisdiction
to delimit constitutional boundaries
FR. BERNAS. Ultimately, therefore, it will
has been given to this Court. It cannot
always have to be decided by the
abdicate that obligationmandated by
Supreme Court according to the new
the 1987 Constitution, although said
numerical need for votes.
provision by no means does away with
the applicability of the principle in
From the foregoing record of the
appropriate cases.[108] (Emphasis and
proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional
underscoring supplied)
Commission, it is clear that judicial power
is not only a power; it is also a duty, a
And in Daza v. Singson,[109] speaking
duty which cannot be abdicated by the
through Justice Isagani Cruz, this Court
mere specter of this creature called the
ruled:
political question doctrine. Chief Justice
Concepcion hastened to clarify, however,
In the case now before us, the
that Section 1, Article VIII was not
jurisdictional objection becomes even
intended to do away with truly political
less tenable and decisive. The reason is
questions. From this clarification it is
that, even if we were to assume that the
gathered that there are two species of
issue presented before us was political in
political questions: (1) truly political
nature, we would still not be precluded
questions and (2) those which are not
from resolving it under
truly political questions.
the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon
Truly political questions are thus us that now covers, in proper cases, even
beyond judicial review, the reason for the political question.[110] x x x (Emphasis
respect of the doctrine of separation of and underscoring supplied.)
powers to be maintained. On the other
hand, by virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of Section 1, Article VIII, of the Court
the Constitution, courts can review does not define what are justiciable
questions which are not truly political in political questions and non-justiciable
nature. political questions, however. Identification
of these two species of political questions courts are duty-bound to examine
may be problematic. There has been no whether the branch or instrumentality of
clear standard. The American case the government properly acted within
of Baker v. Carr[111] attempts to provide such limits. This Court shall thus now
some: apply this standard to the present
controversy.
x x x Prominent on the surface of any
These petitions raise five substantial
case held to involve a political question is
issues:
found a textually demonstrable
constitutional commitment of the issue to I. Whether the offenses alleged in
a coordinate political department; or alack the Second impeachment
of judicially discoverable and manageable complaint constitute valid
standards for resolving it; or impeachable offenses under
the impossibility of deciding without an the Constitution.
initial policy determination of a kind
II. Whether the second
clearly for non-judicial discretion; or
impeachment complaint was
the impossibility of a courts undertaking
filed in accordance with
independent resolution without
Section 3(4), Article XI of the
expressing lack of the respect due
Constitution.
coordinate branches of government; or
an unusual need for questioning III. Whether the legislative inquiry
adherence to a political decision already by the House Committee on
made; or the potentiality of Justice into the Judicial
embarrassment from multifarious Development Fund is an
pronouncements by various departments unconstitutional infringement
on one question.[112] (Underscoring of the constitutionally
supplied) mandated fiscal autonomy of
the judiciary.
Of these standards, the more reliable
have been the first three: (1) a textually IV. Whether Sections 15 and 16
demonstrable constitutional commitment of Rule V of the Rules on
of the issue to a coordinate political Impeachment adopted by the
department; (2) the lack of judicially 12th Congress are
discoverable and manageable standards unconstitutional for violating
for resolving it; and (3) the impossibility of the provisions of Section 3,
deciding without an initial policy Article XI of the Constitution.
determination of a kind clearly for non- V. Whether the second
judicial discretion. These standards are impeachment complaint is
not separate and distinct concepts but barred under Section 3(5) of
are interrelated to each in that the Article XI of the Constitution.
presence of one strengthens the
conclusion that the others are also The first issue goes into the merits of
present. the second impeachment complaint over
which this Court has no jurisdiction. More
The problem in applying the importantly, any discussion of this issue
foregoing standards is that the American would require this Court to make a
concept of judicial review is radically determination of what constitutes an
different from our current concept, for impeachable offense. Such a
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution determination is a purely political
provides our courts with far less question which the Constitution has left to
discretion in determining whether they the sound discretion of the legislation.
should pass upon a constitutional issue. Such an intent is clear from the
In our jurisdiction, the determination deliberations of the Constitutional
of a truly political question from a non- Commission.[113]
justiciable political question lies in the Although Section 2 of Article XI of the
answer to the question of whether there Constitution enumerates six grounds for
are constitutionally imposed limits on impeachment, two of these, namely, other
powers or functions conferred upon high crimes and betrayal of public trust,
political bodies. If there are, then our elude a precise definition. In fact, an
examination of the records of the 1986 of the case itself.[118] [Emphasis
Constitutional Commission shows that supplied]
the framers could find no better way to
approximate the boundaries of betrayal of Succinctly put, courts will not touch
public trust and other high crimes than by the issue of constitutionality unless it is
alluding to both positive and negative truly unavoidable and is the very lis
examples of both, without arriving at their mota or crux of the controversy.
clear cut definition or even a standard
As noted earlier, the instant
therefor.[114] Clearly, the issue calls upon
consolidated petitions, while all seeking
this court to decide a non-justiciable
the invalidity of the second impeachment
political question which is beyond the
complaint, collectively raise several
scope of its judicial power under Section
constitutional issues upon which the
1, Article VIII.
outcome of this controversy could
Lis Mota possibly be made to rest. In determining
whether one, some or all of the remaining
It is a well-settled maxim of
substantial issues should be passed
adjudication that an issue assailing the
upon, this Court is guided by the related
constitutionality of a governmental act
cannon of adjudication that the court
should be avoided whenever
should not form a rule of constitutional
possible. Thus, in the case of Sotto v.
law broader than is required by the
Commission on Elections,[115] this Court
precise facts to which it is applied.[119]
held:
In G.R. No. 160310, petitioners
x x x It is a well-established rule that a Leonilo R. Alfonso, et al. argue that,
court should not pass upon a among other reasons, the second
constitutional question and decide a law impeachment complaint is invalid since it
to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless directly resulted from a
[120]
such question is raised by the parties and Resolution calling for a legislative
that when it is raised, if the record also inquiry into the JDF, which Resolution
presents some other ground upon and legislative inquiry petitioners claim to
which the court may rest its judgment, likewise be unconstitutional for being: (a)
that course will be adopted and the a violation of the rules and jurisprudence
constitutional question will be left for on investigations in aid of legislation; (b)
consideration until a case arises in an open breach of the doctrine of
which a decision upon such question separation of powers; (c) a violation of
will be unavoidable.[116] [Emphasis and the constitutionally mandated fiscal
underscoring supplied] autonomy of the judiciary; and (d) an
assault on the independence of the
The same principle was applied judiciary.[121]
in Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian
Without going into the merits of
Reform,[117] where this Court invalidated
petitioners Alfonso, et. al.s claims, it is the
Sections 13 and 32 of Republic Act No.
studied opinion of this Court that the
6657 for being confiscatory and violative
issue of the constitutionality of the said
of due process, to wit:
Resolution and resulting legislative
inquiry is too far removed from the issue
It has been established that this Court
of the validity of the second impeachment
will assume jurisdiction over a
complaint. Moreover, the resolution of
constitutional question only if it is
said issue would, in the Courts opinion,
shown that the essential requisites of
require it to form a rule of constitutional
a judicial inquiry into such a question
law touching on the separate and distinct
are first satisfied. Thus, there must be
matter of legislative inquiries in general,
an actual case or controversy involving a
which would thus be broader than is
conflict of legal rights susceptible of
required by the facts of these
judicial determination, the constitutional
consolidated cases. This opinion is
question must have been opportunely
further strengthened by the fact that said
raised by the proper party, and the
petitioners have raised other grounds in
resolution of the question is
support of their petition which would not
unavoidably necessary to the decision
be adversely affected by the Courts
ruling.
En passant, this Court notes that a Representatives signed a Resolution of
standard for the conduct of legislative Endorsement/Impeachment, the same
inquiries has already been enunciated by did not satisfy the requisites for the
this Court in Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue application of the afore-mentioned
Ribbon Commttee,[122] viz: section in that the verified complaint or
resolution of impeachment was
The 1987 Constitution expressly not filed by at least one-third of all the
recognizes the power of both houses of Members of the House.With the
Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of exception of Representatives Teodoro
legislation. Thus, Section 21, Article VI and Fuentebella, the signatories to said
thereof provides: Resolution are alleged to have verified
the same merely as a Resolution of
The Senate or the House of Endorsement. Intervenors point to the
Representatives or any of its respective Verification of the Resolution of
committees may conduct inquiries in aid Endorsement which states that:
of legislation in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure. The rights We are the proponents/sponsors of the
of persons appearing in or affected by Resolution of Endorsement of the
such inquiries shall be respected. abovementioned Complaint of
Representatives Gilberto Teodoro and
The power of both houses of Congress to Felix William B. Fuentebella x x x[124]
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is
not, therefore absolute or unlimited. Its Intervenors Macalintal and Quadra
exercise is circumscribed by the afore- further claim that what the Constitution
quoted provision of the requires in order for said second
Constitution. Thus, as provided therein, impeachment complaint to automatically
the investigation must be in aid of become the Articles of Impeachment and
legislation in accordance with its duly for trial in the Senate to begin forthwith, is
published rules of procedure and that the that the verified complaint be filed, not
rights of persons appearing in or affected merely endorsed, by at least one-third of
by such inquiries shall be respected. It the Members of the House of
follows then that the right rights of Representatives. Not having complied
persons under the Bill of Rights must be with this requirement, they concede that
respected, including the right to due the second impeachment complaint
process and the right not be compelled to should have been calendared and
testify against ones self.[123] referred to the House Committee on
Justice under Section 3(2), Article XI of
In G.R. No. 160262, intervenors the Constitution, viz:
Romulo B. Macalintal and Pete Quirino
Quadra, while joining the original petition Section 3(2) A verified complaint for
of petitioners Candelaria, et. al., introduce impeachment may be filed by any
the new argument that since the second Member of the House of Representatives
impeachment complaint was verified and or by any citizen upon a resolution of
filed only by Representatives Gilberto endorsement by any Member thereof,
Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William which shall be included in the Order of
Fuentebella, the same does not fall under Business within ten session days, and
the provisions of Section 3 (4), Article XI referred to the proper Committee within
of the Constitution which reads: three session days thereafter. The
Committee, after hearing, and by a
Section 3(4) In case the verified majority vote of all its Members, shall
complaint or resolution of impeachment is submit its report to the House within sixty
filed by at least one-third of all the session days from such referral, together
Members of the House, the same shall with the corresponding resolution. The
constitute the Articles of Impeachment, resolution shall be calendared for
and trial by the Senate shall forthwith consideration by the House within ten
proceed. session days from receipt thereof.
3. the court issues an order granting the A motion of the accused for a
motion and dismissing the case provisional dismissal of a case is an
provisionally; express consent to such provisional
dismissal.[11] If a criminal case is
4. the public prosecutor is served with a
provisionally dismissed with the express
copy of the order of provisional dismissal
consent of the accused, the case may be
of the case.
revived only within the periods provided
in the new rule. On the other hand, if a
The foregoing requirements are
criminal case is provisionally dismissed
conditions sine qua non to the application
without the express consent of the
of the time-bar in the second paragraph
accused or over his objection, the new
of the new rule. The raison d etre for the
rule would not apply. The case may be
requirement of the express consent of the
revived or refiled even beyond the
accused to a provisional dismissal of a
prescribed periods subject to the right of determination of probable cause and for
the accused to oppose the same on the examination of prosecution witnesses
ground of double jeopardy[12] or that such alleging that under Article III, Section 2 of
revival or refiling is barred by the statute the Constitution and the decision of this
of limitations.[13] Court in Allado v. Diokno,[17] among other
cases, there was a need for the trial court
The case may be revived by the to conduct a personal determination of
State within the time-bar either by the probable cause for the issuance of a
refiling of the Information or by the filing warrant of arrest against respondent and
of a new Information for the same offense to have the prosecutions witnesses
or an offense necessarily included summoned before the court for its
therein. There would be no need of a new examination. The respondent contended
preliminary investigation.[14] However, in a therein that until after the trial court shall
case wherein after the provisional have personally determined the presence
dismissal of a criminal case, the original of probable cause, no warrant of arrest
witnesses of the prosecution or some of should be issued against the respondent
them may have recanted their and if one had already been issued, the
testimonies or may have died or may no warrant should be recalled by the trial
longer be available and new witnesses court. He then prayed therein that:
for the State have emerged, a new
preliminary investigation[15] must be 1) a judicial determination of probable
conducted before an Information is refiled cause pursuant to Section 2, Article III of
or a new Information is filed. A new the Constitution be conducted by this
preliminary investigation is also required Honorable Court, and for this purpose, an
if aside from the original accused, other order be issued directing the prosecution
persons are charged under a new to present the private complainants and
criminal complaint for the same offense or their witnesses at a hearing scheduled
necessarily included therein; or if under a therefor; and
new criminal complaint, the original
charge has been upgraded; or if under a 2) warrants for the arrest of the accused-
new criminal complaint, the criminal movants be withheld, or, if issued,
liability of the accused is upgraded from recalled in the meantime until the
that as an accessory to that as a resolution of this incident.
principal. The accused must be accorded
the right to submit counter-affidavits and Other equitable reliefs are also prayed
evidence. After all, the fiscal is not called for.[18]
by the Rules of Court to wait in ambush;
the role of a fiscal is not mainly to The respondent did not pray for the
prosecute but essentially to do justice to dismissal, provisional or otherwise, of
every man and to assist the court in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-
dispensing that justice.[16] 99-81689. Neither did he ever agree,
impliedly or expressly, to a mere
In this case, the respondent has provisional dismissal of the cases. In fact,
failed to prove that the first and second in his reply filed with the Court of
requisites of the first paragraph of the Appeals, respondent emphasized that:
new rule were present when Judge Agnir,
Jr. dismissed Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99- ... An examination of the Motion for
81679 to Q-99-81689. Irrefragably, the Judicial Determination of Probable Cause
prosecution did not file any motion for the and for Examination of Prosecution
provisional dismissal of the said criminal Witnesses filed by the petitioner and his
cases. For his part, the respondent other co-accused in the said criminal
merely filed a motion for judicial cases would show that the petitioner did
not pray for the dismissal of the case. On To apply the new rule in Criminal
the contrary, the reliefs prayed for therein Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689
by the petitioner are: (1) a judicial would be to add to or make exceptions
determination of probable cause pursuant from the new rule which are not expressly
to Section 2, Article III of the Constitution; or impliedly included therein. This the
and (2) that warrants for the arrest of the Court cannot and should not do.[23]
accused be withheld, or if issued,
recalled in the meantime until the The Court also agrees with the
resolution of the motion. It cannot be petitioners contention that no notice of
said, therefore, that the dismissal of the any motion for the provisional dismissal
case was made with the consent of the of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-
petitioner. A copy of the aforesaid motion 99-81689 or of the hearing thereon was
is hereto attached and made integral part served on the heirs of the victims at least
hereof as Annex A.[19] three days before said hearing as
mandated by Rule 15, Section 4 of the
During the hearing in the Court of Rules of Court. It must be borne in mind
Appeals on July 31, 2001, the that in crimes involving private interests,
respondent, through counsel, the new rule requires that the offended
categorically, unequivocally, and definitely party or parties or the heirs of the victims
declared that he did not file any motion to must be given adequate a priori notice of
dismiss the criminal cases nor did he any motion for the provisional dismissal
agree to a provisional dismissal thereof, of the criminal case. Such notice may be
thus: served on the offended party or the heirs
of the victim through the private
Continue.[20] prosecutor, if there is one, or through the
public prosecutor who in turn must relay
In his memorandum in lieu of the oral the notice to the offended party or the
argument filed with the Court of Appeals, heirs of the victim to enable them to
the respondent declared in no uncertain confer with him before the hearing or
terms that: appear in court during the hearing. The
proof of such service must be shown
Soon thereafter, the SC in early 1999 during the hearing on the motion,
rendered a decision declaring the otherwise, the requirement of the new
Sandiganbayan without jurisdiction over rule will become illusory. Such notice will
the cases. The records were remanded to enable the offended party or the heirs of
the QC RTC: Upon raffle, the case was the victim the opportunity to seasonably
assigned to Branch 81. Petitioner and the and effectively comment on or object to
others promptly filed a motion for judicial the motion on valid grounds, including:
determination of probable cause (Annex (a) the collusion between the prosecution
B). He asked that warrants for his arrest and the accused for the provisional
not be issued. He did not move for the dismissal of a criminal case thereby
dismissal of the Informations, contrary depriving the State of its right to due
to respondent OSGs claim.[21] process; (b) attempts to make witnesses
unavailable; or (c) the provisional
The respondents admissions made in
dismissal of the case with the consequent
the course of the proceedings in the
release of the accused from detention
Court of Appeals are binding and
would enable him to threaten and kill the
conclusive on him. The respondent is
offended party or the other prosecution
barred from repudiating his admissions
witnesses or flee from Philippine
absent evidence of palpable mistake in
jurisdiction, provide opportunity for the
making such admissions.[22]
destruction or loss of the prosecutions
physical and other evidence and
prejudice the rights of the offended party public prosecutor and/or the private
to recover on the civil liability of the prosecutor to notify all the heirs of the
accused by his concealment or furtive victims of the respondents motion and the
disposition of his property or the hearing thereon and of the resolution of
consequent lifting of the writ of Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissing said
preliminary attachment against his cases. The said heirs were thus deprived
property. of their right to be heard on the
respondents motion and to protect their
In the case at bar, even if the interests either in the trial court or in the
respondents motion for a determination of appellate court.
probable cause and examination of
witnesses may be considered for the Since the conditions sine qua non for
nonce as his motion for a provisional the application of the new rule were not
dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99- present when Judge Agnir, Jr. issued his
81679 to Q-99-81689, however, the heirs resolution, the State is not barred by the
of the victims were not notified thereof time limit set forth in the second
prior to the hearing on said motion on paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 117 of the
March 22, 1999. It must be stressed that Revised Rules of Criminal
the respondent filed his motion only on Procedure. The State can thus revive or
March 17, 1999 and set it for hearing on refile Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to
March 22, 1999 or barely five days from Q-99-81689 or file new Informations for
the filing thereof. Although the public multiple murder against the respondent.
prosecutor was served with a copy of the
motion, the records do not show that II. THE TIME-BAR IN SECTION
notices thereof were separately given to 8, RULE 117 OF THE REVISED
the heirs of the victims or that subpoenae RULES OF CRIMINAL
were issued to and received by them, PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT BE
including those who executed their APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.
affidavits of desistance who were
residents of Dipolog City or Pian, The petitioners contend that even on
Zamboanga del Norte or Palompon, the assumption that the respondent
Leyte.[24] There is as well no proof in the expressly consented to a provisional
records that the public prosecutor notified dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-
the heirs of the victims of said motion or 81679 to Q-99-81689 and all the heirs of
of the hearing thereof on March 22, the victims were notified of the
1999. Although Atty. Valdez entered his respondents motion before the hearing
appearance as private prosecutor,[25] he thereon and were served with copies of
did so only for some but not all the close the resolution of Judge Agnir, Jr.
kins of the victims, namely, Nenita Alap- dismissing the eleven cases, the two-year
ap, Imelda Montero, Margarita Redillas, bar in Section 8 of Rule 117 of the
Rufino Siplon, Carmelita Elcamel, Myrna Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Abalora, and Leonora Amora who (except should be applied prospectively and not
for Rufino Siplon)[26] executed their retroactively against the State.To apply
respective affidavits of desistance. the time limit retroactively to the criminal
[27]
There was no appearance for the heirs cases against the respondent and his co-
of Alex Neri, Pacifico Montero, Jr., and accused would violate the right of the
Meleubren Sorronda. There is no proof People to due process, and unduly
on record that all the heirs of the victims impair, reduce, and diminish the States
were served with copies of the resolution substantive right to prosecute the
of Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissing the said accused for multiple murder. They posit
cases. In fine, there never was any that under Article 90 of the Revised Penal
attempt on the part of the trial court, the Code, the State had twenty years within
which to file the criminal complaints Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 beyond the
against the accused. However, under the time-bar under the new rule.
new rule, the State only had two years
from notice of the public prosecutor of the The respondent insists that Section 8
order of dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 within which Criminal Procedure does not broaden the
to revive the said cases. When the new substantive right of double jeopardy to
rule took effect on December 1, 2000, the the prejudice of the State because the
State only had one year and three prohibition against the revival of the
months within which to revive the cases cases within the one-year or two-year
or refile the Informations. The period for periods provided therein is a legal
the State to charge respondent for concept distinct from the prohibition
multiple murder under Article 90 of the against the revival of a provisionally
Revised Penal Code was considerably dismissed case within the periods stated
and arbitrarily reduced. They submit that in Section 8 of Rule 117. Moreover, he
in case of conflict between the Revised claims that the effects of a provisional
Penal Code and the new rule, the former dismissal under said rule do not modify or
should prevail. They also insist that the negate the operation of the prescriptive
State had consistently relied on the period under Article 90 of the Revised
prescriptive periods under Article 90 of Penal Code. Prescription under the
the Revised Penal Code. It was not Revised Penal Code simply becomes
accorded a fair warning that it would irrelevant upon the application of Section
forever be barred beyond the two-year 8, Rule 117 because a complaint or
period by a retroactive application of the information has already been filed against
new rule.[28] Petitioners thus pray to the the accused, which filing tolls the running
Court to set aside its Resolution of May of the prescriptive period under Article 90.
[32]
28, 2002.
For his part, the respondent asserts The Court agrees with the
that the new rule under Section 8 of Rule respondent that the new rule is not a
117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal statute of limitations. Statutes of
Procedure may be applied retroactively limitations are construed as acts of grace,
since there is no substantive right of the and a surrender by the sovereign of its
State that may be impaired by its right to prosecute or of its right to
application to the criminal cases in prosecute at its discretion. Such statutes
question since [t]he States witnesses are considered as equivalent to acts of
were ready, willing and able to provide amnesty founded on the liberal theory
their testimony but the prosecution failed that prosecutions should not be allowed
to act on these cases until it became to ferment endlessly in the files of the
politically expedient in April 2001 for them government to explode only after
to do so.[29] According to the respondent, witnesses and proofs necessary for the
penal laws, either procedural or protection of the accused have by sheer
substantive, may be retroactively applied lapse of time passed beyond availability.
[33]
so long as they favor the accused. [30] He The periods fixed under such statutes
asserts that the two-year period are jurisdictional and are essential
commenced to run on March 29, 1999 elements of the offenses covered.[34]
and lapsed two years thereafter was
more than reasonable opportunity for the On the other hand, the time-bar
State to fairly indict him.[31] In any event, under Section 8 of Rule 117 is akin to a
the State is given the right under the special procedural limitation qualifying the
Courts assailed Resolution to justify the right of the State to prosecute making the
filing of the Information in Criminal Cases time-bar an essence of the given right or
as an inherent part thereof, so that the than statutes barring civil remedies
lapse of the time-bar operates to usually do. They expressly take away
extinguish the right of the State to only the remedy by suit, and that
prosecute the accused.[35] inferentially is held to abate the right
which such remedy would enforce, and
The time-bar under the new rule does perfect the title which such remedy would
not reduce the periods under Article 90 of invade; but this statute is aimed directly
the Revised Penal Code, a substantive at the very right which the state has
law.[36] It is but a limitation of the right of against the offenderthe right to punish, as
the State to revive a criminal case against the only liability which the offender has
the accused after the Information had incurred, and declares that this right and
been filed but subsequently provisionally this liability are at an end. [41]
dismissed with the express consent of the
accused. Upon the lapse of the timeline The Court agrees with the
under the new rule, the State is respondent that procedural laws may be
presumed, albeit disputably, to have applied retroactively. As applied to
abandoned or waived its right to revive criminal law, procedural law provides or
the case and prosecute the accused. The regulates the steps by which one who
dismissal becomes ipso has committed a crime is to be
facto permanent. He can no longer be punished. In Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,
[42]
charged anew for the same crime or this Court held that:
another crime necessarily included
therein.[37] He is spared from the anguish Statutes regulating the procedure of the
and anxiety as well as the expenses in courts will be construed as applicable to
any new indictments.[38] The State may actions pending and undetermined at the
revive a criminal case beyond the one- time of their passage. Procedural laws
year or two-year periods provided that are retroactive in that sense and to that
there is a justifiable necessity for the extent. The fact that procedural statutes
delay.[39] By the same token, if a criminal may somehow affect the litigants rights
case is dismissed on motion of the may not preclude their retroactive
accused because the trial is not application to pending actions. The
concluded within the period therefor, the retroactive application of procedural laws
prescriptive periods under the Revised is not violative of any right of a person
Penal Code are not thereby diminished. who may feel that he is adversely
[40]
But whether or not the prosecution of affected. Nor is the retroactive application
the accused is barred by the statute of of procedural statutes constitutionally
limitations or by the lapse of the time-line objectionable. The reason is that as a
under the new rule, the effect is basically general rule no vested right may attach
the same. As the State Supreme Court of to, nor arise from, procedural laws. It has
Illinois held: been held that a person has no vested
right in any particular remedy, and a
This, in effect, enacts that when the litigant cannot insist on the application to
specified period shall have arrived, the the trial of his case, whether civil or
right of the state to prosecute shall be criminal, of any other than the existing
gone, and the liability of the offender to rules of procedure.
be punishedto be deprived of his
libertyshall cease. Its terms not only strike It further ruled therein that a
down the right of action which the state procedural law may not be applied
had acquired by the offense, but also retroactively if to do so would work
remove the flaw which the crime had injustice or would involve intricate
created in the offenders title to liberty. In problems of due process or impair the
this respect, its language goes deeper independence of the Court. In a per
curiam decision in Cipriano v. City of (a) the purpose to be served by the new
Houma,[43] the United States Supreme standards, (b) the extent of the reliance
Court ruled that where a decision of the by law enforcement authorities on the old
court would produce substantial standards, and (c) the effect on the
inequitable results if applied retroactively, administration of justice of a retroactive
there is ample basis for avoiding the application of the new standards.
injustice of hardship by a holding of
nonretroactivity.[44] A construction of which In this case, the Court agrees with
a statute is fairly susceptible is favored, the petitioners that the time-bar of two
which will avoid all objectionable, years under the new rule should not be
mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, and applied retroactively against the State.
injurious consequences.[45] This Court
should not adopt an interpretation of a In the new rule in question, as now
statute which produces absurd, construed by the Court, it has fixed a
unreasonable, unjust, or oppressive time-bar of one year or two years for the
results if such interpretation could be revival of criminal cases provisionally
avoided.[46] Time and again, this Court dismissed with the express consent of the
has decreed that statutes are to be accused and with a priori notice to the
construed in light of the purposes to be offended party. The time-bar may appear,
achieved and the evils sought to be on first impression, unreasonable
remedied. In construing a statute, the compared to the periods under Article 90
reason for the enactment should be kept of the Revised Penal Code. However, in
in mind and the statute should be fixing the time-bar, the Court balanced
construed with reference to the intended the societal interests and those of the
scope and purpose.[47] accused for the orderly and speedy
disposition of criminal cases with
Remedial legislation, or procedural minimum prejudice to the State and the
rule, or doctrine of the Court designed to accused. It took into account the
enhance and implement the constitutional substantial rights of both the State and of
rights of parties in criminal proceedings the accused to due process. The Court
may be applied retroactively or believed that the time limit is a
prospectively depending upon several reasonable period for the State to revive
factors, such as the history of the new provisionally dismissed cases with the
rule, its purpose and effect, and whether consent of the accused and notice to the
the retrospective application will further offended parties. The time-bar fixed by
its operation, the particular conduct the Court must be respected unless it is
sought to be remedied and the effect shown that the period is manifestly short
thereon in the administration of justice or insufficient that the rule becomes a
and of criminal laws in particular.[48] In denial of justice.[50] The petitioners failed
a per curiamdecision in Stefano v. to show a manifest shortness or
Woods,[49] the United States Supreme insufficiency of the time-bar.
Court catalogued the factors in
determining whether a new rule or The new rule was conceptualized by
doctrine enunciated by the High Court the Committee on the Revision of the
should be given retrospective or Rules and approved by the Court en
prospective effect: banc primarily to enhance the
administration of the criminal justice
system and the rights to due process of
the State and the accused by eliminating
the deleterious practice of trial courts of
provisionally dismissing criminal cases on
motion of either the prosecution or the
accused or jointly, either with no time-bar may also lose his witnesses or their
for the revival thereof or with a specific or memories may fade with the passage of
definite period for such revival by the time. In the long run, it may diminish his
public prosecutor. There were times when capacity to defend himself and thus
such criminal cases were no longer eschew the fairness of the entire criminal
revived or refiled due to causes beyond justice system.[56]
the control of the public prosecutor or
because of the indolence, apathy or the The time-bar under the new rule was
lackadaisical attitude of public fixed by the Court to excise the malaise
prosecutors to the prejudice of the State that plagued the administration of the
and the accused despite the mandate to criminal justice system for the benefit of
public prosecutors and trial judges to the State and the accused; not for the
expedite criminal proceedings.[51] accused only.