Case of Tin
Case of Tin
Case of Tin
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
PROCEEDINGS:
2. The failure to take prompt and 2. she did not prosecute Gen. Eliseo
immediate action against PGMA and de la Paz for violating BSP
FG with regard to the NBN-ZTE rules[12] that prohibit the taking out
Broadband project of the country of currency in excess
of US$10,000 without declaring the
same to the Phil. Customs, despite
his admission under oath before the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Petitioner was also served a notice directing her to file an answer to
the complaints within 10 days.
On September 27, 29 and 30, 2010, the Baraquel group which filed
the first complaint, the Reyes group which filed the second complaint,
and public respondent (through the OSG and private counsel) filed
their respective Comments.
6. The repeated delays and failure to 4. through her repeated failure and
take action on cases impressed with inexcusable delay in acting upon
public interest matters, she violated Sec. 12 and
Sec. 13, pars. 1-3 of Art. XI and Sec.
16 of Art. III of the Constitution
which mandates prompt action and
speedy disposition of cases
ISSUES:
RULINGS:
First Issue:
The Court invoked the doctrine in Francisco Jr. vs HOR, that,
judicial review is not only a power but a duty of the judiciary.
Francisco characterizes the power of judicial review as a duty,
which, as the expanded certiorari jurisdiction of this Court reflects,
includes the power 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."
Second Issue:
The Court held the presumption of regular. It further averred
that the determination of sufficiency of form and the express grant of
rule-making power is vested in the House of Representatives.
The Impeachment Rules are clear as to the requirements and in
providing that there must be a verified complaint or resolution, and
that the substance requirement is met if there is a recital of facts
constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction
of the committee.
Third Issue:
The unusual act of simultaneously referring to public
respondent two impeachment complaints presents a novel situation
to invoke judicial power. Petitioner cannot thus be considered to
have acted prematurely when she took the cue from the constitutional
limitation that only one impeachment proceeding should be initiated
against an impeachable officer within a period of one year.
JUDICIAL CONTRIBUTION:
POLITICAL LAW
FRANCISCO DOCTRINE
In Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, the argument
that impeachment proceedings are beyond the reach of judicial
review was debunked in this wise:
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
DISSENTING OPINION
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ARTURO D. BRION
Neither can Francisco simply be disregarded out of the fear that it will
allow erring officials - who, the respondents say, may just cause a
frivolous complaint to be filed ahead of more meritorious ones - to
easily escape impeachment. This fear is not grounded on reason.
The Constitution already provides ample safeguards to prevent the
filing of sham impeachment complaints.