Monday, April 16, 2018
By 2022, Duterte-appointed justices likely will have a supermajority on the Supreme Court
See - https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/24562/philippine-courts-struggle-to-hold-the-line-against-duterte-s-strongman-tactics
"x x x.
"Yet in the Philippines, Duterte remains an exceptionally strong president—far stronger than the ousted leaders of South Korea or Brazil—and the judiciary cannot stand up to him on its own. Duterte is increasingly wielding near-authoritarian powers, and the lack of a clear, coherent opposition movement further strengthens his hand.
Perhaps even more ominously, because of retirements and vacancies, Duterte will have the power to appoint most of the members of the Supreme Court by the end of his presidential term in 2022, according to Straits Times columnist Senen Y. Gilonga. He could even remain in power past 2022, as his administration has mooted the idea of overseeing constitutional changes that would transform the Philippines into a federal state and, in turn, extend Duterte’s time as president. In that scenario, he could dominate judicial appointments for even longer.
By 2022, Duterte-appointed justices likely will have a supermajority on the Supreme Court, Glinoga warns. As Duterte’s appointees take their seats, the Supreme Court may become less of a challenge to the strongman, pushing lower courts to follow suit.
But even now, the Philippines’ courts are nowhere near as independent as, say, Brazil’s, and Duterte’s influence over the Supreme Court and other parts of the judiciary may already be having its effect. His administration is calling on the legislature to impeach Chief Justice Sereno on allegations of corruption, and the lower house probably will follow through on the president’s request. With two-thirds support in the lower house for impeachment—a number Duterte is likely to get—Sereno’s case would go to the Senate, where she would probably lose.
Her own colleagues on the Supreme Court are conducting an investigation into her, and heard oral arguments probing her conduct this week. The hearing comes after Duterte’s solicitor general filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking it to remove Sereno. It remains unclear whether the Supreme Court can even legally remove its chief justice itself, but the pressure is piling on Sereno, whose sidelining would undermine the whole judiciary. It looks more likely that Duterte will dominate the courts, just as he has civil society. "
- Joshua Kurlantzick is senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations.
x x x."
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Consolidation of cases on appeal: "All attorneys of the parties in cases brought to the third level courts either on appeal or interlocutory review (like certiorari) are REQUIRED to promptly notify the reviewing courts of the pendency of any other cases and proceedings involving the same parties and issues pending in the same or other courts."
See - https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/am_ca-13-51-j_2013.html
"x x x.
In the appellate stage, therefore, the rigid policy is to make the consolidation of all cases and proceedings resting on the same set of facts, or involving identical claims or interests or parties mandatory. Such consolidation should be made regardless of whether or not the parties or any of them requests it. A mandatory policy eliminates conflicting results concerning similar or like issues between the same parties or interests even as it enhances the administration of justice.
In this connection, the Court reminds all attorneys appearing as counsel for the initiating parties of their direct responsibility to give prompt notice of any related cases pending in the courts, and to move for the consolidation of such related cases in the proper courts. This responsibility proceeds from their express undertakings in the certifications against forum-shopping that accompany their initiatory pleadings pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 7 and related rules in the Rules of Court, to the effect that they have not theretofore commenced any actions or filed any claims involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of their knowledge, no such other actions or claims are pending therein; that if there were such other pending actions or claims, to render complete statements of the present status thereof; and if they should thereafter learn that the same or similar actions or claims have been filed or are pending, they shall report that fact within five days therefrom to the courts wherein the said complaints or initiatory pleadings have been filed.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the administrative complaint against Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz of the Court of Appeals for its lack of merit.
The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to forthwith adopt measures that will ensure the strict observance of Section 3, Rule III of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, including the revision of the rule itself to make the consolidation of cases and proceedings concerning similar or like issues or involving the same parties or interests mandatory and not dependent on the initiative of the parties or of any of them.
All attorneys of the parties in cases brought to the third level courts either on appeal or interlocutory review (like certiorari) are REQUIRED to promptly notify the reviewing courts of the pendency of any other cases and proceedings involving the same parties and issues pending in the same or other courts.
Let this decision be FURNISHED to the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and the Office of the Court Administrator for their guidance; and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for dissemination to all its chapters.
SO ORDERED.
x x x."
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)