2011 Annual Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES This is a publication of the Supreme Court Public Information Office. Prior permission is not required to reproduce its contents, in whole or in part. An electronic copy of this publication may be downloaded from sc.judiciary.gov.ph ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 1 2 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 ANNUAL REPORT2011| | SUPREMECOURTOFTHEPHILIPPINES SUPREMECOURT OFTHEPHILIPPINES THE 2011 TO 2012 CORONA COURT (Center) Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, (Left to Right) Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes, Jose Catral Mendoza, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Mariano C. del Castillo, Diosdado M. Peralta, Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, Jose Portugal Perez, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES • The 2011 Corona Court 2 • Message from the Acting Chief Justice 4 • 2011: Upholding the Rule of Law 6 in Face of Unprecedented Challenges • Justices of the Supreme Court 15 • Highlights of the CY 2013 Budget Proposals 41 of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and Lower Courts • The State of the 2011 Judiciary 44 • 2011 Supreme Court Reform Projects 50 • Officials of the Supreme Court 55 • Attached Institutions 67 • 2011 Significant Decisions 70 • 2011 Significant Rules 76 • Significant Accomplishments 77 of SC Committees and Technical Working Groups • Significant Fora, Conferences, 80 Seminars, and Workshops • 2011 Significant Administrative Rulings 86 • Employee Welfare and Benefits 94 • The Philippine Judicial System 99 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 3 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES he Filipino people, through the 1987 Constitution, place in the Supreme Court a duty much larger than that Tenjoyed by most, if not all, the highest courts of other countries. This duty is the duty to determine if there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Entrusted with this expanded certiorari jurisdiction, the Supreme Court often cannot avoid conflicts with the two other great political branches of government, and is usually asked to resolve many of the great issues that divide our nation. Unlike the President or Congress, however, the Supreme Court, or the entire Judiciary for that matter, has neither the power of the sword nor the power of the purse. As Alexander Hamilton put it, the Judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society,” and has “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” Wielding only judgment, the Judiciary can fulfill its great duty only with the support of the very people who have entrusted to it its crucial role. Maintaining the public’s trust in the Judiciary, therefore, is an essential precondition to the continued effectiveness of courts in the fulfillment of their role in our representative democracy. This trust is not something that courts should take for granted; it must be built, and once built, it must be maintained. Continued public faith in the Judiciary is built and maintained by 4 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES ensuring to the people a workable representative democracy that protects constitutional rights and guarantees the rule of law. This can be achieved by the Judiciary only by working together with other government institutions and nurturing its relationships with them. The principle of separation of powers does not create exclusive fiefdoms for each of the three great departments of government. It provides merely the conceptual tools and institutional safeguards for preventing the sort of accumulation of power that history has proven to be inimical to the public good. The Judiciary’s primary endeavor is its duty to decide cases, and it is here where it can better nurture its relationships with the President, Congress, and the rest of government. This it can do by recognizing and taking advantage of the relative competencies of the different government institutions—without of course compromising the courts’ duty to protect constitutional values and fundamental rights. For example, it is a basic principle that courts take into account Congress’ general purposes in enacting a statute whenever its provisions are interpreted and applied to a case. Also, proper deference should be accorded to the specializations and expertise of • administrative agencies whenever their decisions are contested before the Court. MESSAGE Of course, the Judiciary in nurturing these relationships must still always look to its expanded duty under our FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE • system of government as a special obligation to the people, which it must never compromise even in the face of the raging passions of the day. It must be resolute in its commitment to the rule of law and to fundamental rights, even when public expediency demands otherwise. This, ultimately, is what gives weight to its judgments, and maintains confidence in the legitimacy of its decisions. Justice Antonio T. Carpio ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 5 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 2011: Upholding the Rule of Law in Face of Unprecedented Challenges 011 proved to be a tumultuous year for the Supreme Court, ending with Chief 2Justice Renato C. Corona being impeached by the House of Representatives • 2011: UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW IN FACE UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGES on December 12, 2011. Nonetheless, the Court continues to do its work, specifically to discharge its constitutional duty “to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” (Art. XVIII, sec. 1) Its primary accomplishment is the disposition of cases imbued with public interest and of national significance. It wrote finis to the following cases: GR No. 159618, Bayan Muna v. Romulo, February 1, 2011 (Velasco, J.) The Court dismissed for lack of merit the petition assailing the Non-Surrender Agreement concluded by and between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America absent any clear contravention of the law. The Agreement provides in pertinent part that Persons of one Party present in the territory of the other shall not, absent the express consent of the first Party, (a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any international tribunal for any purpose, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council or (b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any other entity or third country, or expelled to a third country, for the purpose of surrender to or transfer to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council. The decision became final on April 15, 2011. 6 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNUAL REPORT 2011 | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES is required because the Rules expressly mandate their publication. Thus, it ruled that the referral of the subject complaint against a Senator by the Committee on Ethics and Privileges to the Senate Committee of the Whole shall take effect only upon publication of the said Rules. The decision became final on March 30, 2011. GR No. 172087, Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) v. BIR, March 15, 2011 (Peralta, J.) The Court held the PAGCOR exempt from value- added tax but not from corporate income tax. The decision became final on August 4, 2011. GR No. 191560, General v. Arroyo, March 29, 2011 (Brion, J.) The Court dismissed the petition assailing the appointment of two Nationsl Police Commission • 2011: UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW IN FACE UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGES (NAPOLCOM) Commissioners on the ground that the same violates the constitutional ban on “midnight” appointments as petitioner himself has not established his right to the office to give cause of action to his petition for quo warranto. The decision attained finality on May 5, 2011. (Signed Res.) GR No. 164195, Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines, April 5, 2011, (Brion, J.) The Court “denied with absolute finality” Land Bank’s second motion for reconsideration of its (Signed Res.) GR No. 176951, League of October 12, 2010 directing the bank to pay Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. COMELEC; petitioners 12% interest on the amount of just GR No. 177499, LCP v. COMELEC; and GR compensation it belatedly paid amounting to P1.3 No. 178056, LCP v. COMELEC, February 15, billion for the petitioners’ expropriated plantations. 2011 (Bersamin, J.) The said ruling became final on April 15, 2011. After first ruling the assailed laws as constitutional in 2008, and then holding (Signed Res.) GR No. 191618, Macalintal v. otherwise in 2009, and then reverting to its 2008 Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), June 7, ruling in 2010, the Court reconsidered its 2010 2011 (Nachura, J.) ruling and instead held as not violative of the The Court denied petitioner’s motion for Constitution and the Local Government Code reconsideration of its decision dated November 23, the 16 Cityhood Laws converting