Scribd
Upload
105 views2 pages

Power of Impeachment, Vis-À-Vis Immunity RE: EM NO. 03-010, Order of The First Division On Elections Dated August 15, 2003

This case summary discusses a petition filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to hold several Supreme Court justices in contempt. The COMELEC first division dismissed the petition, stating the justices could only be punished through impeachment since they were impeachable officers. However, the Supreme Court issued this memorandum declaring the COMELEC's reasoning was unconstitutional and contravened the separation of powers. While the SC noted the dismissal of the contempt petitions, it rejected the COMELEC's suggestion it had power over the court or its justices. The SC affirmed its authority to review and overturn COMELEC decisions.

Uploaded by

irvin2030
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
105 views2 pages

Power of Impeachment, Vis-À-Vis Immunity RE: EM NO. 03-010, Order of The First Division On Elections Dated August 15, 2003

This case summary discusses a petition filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to hold several Supreme Court justices in contempt. The COMELEC first division dismissed the petition, stating the justices could only be punished through impeachment since they were impeachable officers. However, the Supreme Court issued this memorandum declaring the COMELEC's reasoning was unconstitutional and contravened the separation of powers. While the SC noted the dismissal of the contempt petitions, it rejected the COMELEC's suggestion it had power over the court or its justices. The SC affirmed its authority to review and overturn COMELEC decisions.

Uploaded by

irvin2030
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SYLLABUS TITLE: Power of Impeachment, vis-à-vis Immunity

CASE TITLE: RE: EM NO. 03-010, Order of the First Division on Elections Dated August 15, 2003

CASE NUMBER: AM No. 03-8-22-SC, September 16, 2003


FACTS: *Should include what case was filed, by and against whom, where, and when.

 A petition to hold the Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Assoc Justices Josue Bellosillo,
Reynato Puno and Artemio Panganiban in contempt of the Commission of Elections was
filed for holding the Chariman and Members if the COMELEC in contempt via its
resolution in two earlier cases.
 In a Resolution promulgated in EM Nos. 03-010 and 011, the First Division of Comelec
dismissed the the petition against the aforementioned Justices. Stating that while the
First Division of the Commision has established a sufficient ground to hold the latter (the
Justices) in contempt, the First Division dismissed the charge because of the
authoritative doctrine that impeachable officers must first be removed from office by
impeachment before any punitive measure may be imposed against them.
 According to the Court, The Comelec First Division basically insinuates that:

 Comelec has the power to hold the Justice members of the Supreme Court for
their participation and vote in decisions and orders of the Court, when it
allegedly interfered with or impeded the proceedings of the Commission
 It had determined the “existence” of sufficient grounds to declare the Justices in
contempt of the Commission and to impose the “proper penalty” and were it not
for the fact that the Justices were impeachable officers who “must first be
removed from office by impeachment before any punitive measures may be
imposed against them”
 The Supreme Court issued this memorandum to declare its stand regarding the matter.

ARGUMENTS: THIS IS NOT A CASE DECISION, RATHER AN ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION


PETITIONER DEFENDANT

 
 
 
 
 
 
*Input the court under the party it ruled in favor of. See below for example:

RTC CA
SC

ISSUE:

 Is the reason for the dismissal of the contempt charges against the SC Justices in
accordance to Law?

RULING: *Higlight the Doctrine/Law/Principle/Jurisprudence used by the Supreme Court in


deciding the case.
No, the reason presented by the Comelec First Division is a clear contravention of the
Constitution.
I. The Supreme Court has UNQUESTIONED authority to pass upon, modify or reverse
the quasi-judicial actions of the COMELEC
 Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution states that judicial power includes the
duty pf the courts of justice to determine if there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
instrumentality of the Government.
 Article IX, Section 7of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to
pass upon on certiorari “any decision” order or ruling of the COMELEC and other
Constitutional Commissions.
 The SC can modify, strike down or intervene COMELEC’s actions without itself
incurring any liability for contempt. The performance of its duty cannot subject
the Courtor its members to contempt of the COMELEC, otherwise they would
not be able to reverse or modify its abusive actions.
 The Comelec has no reciprocal constitutional power to pass upon the actions of
the Court.
II. COMELEC, while given by the Constitution certain powers and functions, does not
have the same level and standing as the three great branches of the government.
 Neither the Congress nor the President can alter or overrule a final and
executory decision of the Court. Much less the Comelec.
The SC NOTED the resolution promulgated by the First Division insofar as it DISMISSED the
Petitions for Contempt; but its “reasons given” are DECLARED UTTERLY BASELESS for having
been issued without jurisdiction and being in contravention with the Constitution.

You might also like