Category Archives: Supreme Court

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court under Rule 139-B, Section 13 do not involve a trial

Respondents’ requests for a hearing, for production/presentation of evidence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in G.R. No. 162230 and A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, and for access to the records of A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC are unmeritorious. In the Common Compliance, … Continue reading

Posted in Disciplinary Proceedings, Judicial and Legal Ethics, Supreme Court | Tagged | Leave a comment

Whether lawyers who are also law professors can invoke academic freedom as a defense in an administrative proceeding for intemperate statements tending to pressure the Court or influence the outcome of a case or degrade the courts.

The Show Cause Resolution does not interfere with respondents’ academic freedom.               It is not contested that respondents herein are, by law and jurisprudence, guaranteed academic freedom and undisputably, they are free to determine what they will teach … Continue reading

Posted in Academic Freedom, Judicial and Legal Ethics, Supreme Court | Tagged | Leave a comment

In cases where the critics are not only citizens but members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency.

The Show Cause Resolution does not deny respondents their freedom of expression.           It is respondents’ collective claim that the Court, with the issuance of the Show Cause Resolution, has interfered with respondents’ constitutionally mandated right to free speech and … Continue reading

Posted in Freedom of Expression, Judicial and Legal Ethics, Supreme Court | Tagged | Leave a comment

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction and Judicial Review

Respondent asserts that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction “simply calls for the determination of administrative questions, which are ordinarily questions of fact, by administrative agencies rather than by courts of justice.”16 Citing Pimentel v. HRET,17 respondent avers that primary recourse … Continue reading

Posted in Constitutional Law, Judicial Review, Jurisdiction, Separation of Power, Supreme Court | Tagged | Leave a comment

Supreme Court has the power to review the lower courts’ findings of fact

The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land with the power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of the … Continue reading

Posted in Supreme Court | Leave a comment

A situation where the Ombudsman is made to determine whether or not a judgment of the Supreme Court is unjust is an absurdity

In the present case, the “matter” that gave rise to the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum was a criminal complaint filed by the complainants Lozano for the alleged violation by retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. and … Continue reading

Posted in Ombudsman, Subpoeana, Supreme Court | Tagged , | Leave a comment

History and Nature of Impeachment and Judicial Review

“THE PHILIPPINES IS A DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE.  SOVEREIGNTY RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE AND ALL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY EMANATES FROM THEM.”[1] A Republican form of government rests on the conviction that sovereignty should reside in the people and that all government … Continue reading

Posted in Democracy, History, Impeachment, Judicial Review, Philippines, Republican State, Sovereignty, Supreme Court | Tagged | 3 Comments