CONSTI Law I - Marcos V Farinas Case Digest PDF
CONSTI Law I - Marcos V Farinas Case Digest PDF
CONSTI Law I - Marcos V Farinas Case Digest PDF
1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | 2019-2020 | NENGASCA, PAMM
that regardless of their answers, the same were On June 5, 2017, Detabali again failed to
similarly treated as evasive. attend. Instead, the Deputy Secretary General
Jambaro claims that because she could not of the House of Representatives appeared to
recall the transactions Fariñas alluded to and explain that Detabali accompanied several
requested to see the original copy of a members of the House of Representatives on
document presented to her for identification, she a Northern Luzon trip, thus his inability to
was cited in contempt and ordered detained. attend the scheduled hearing.
Allegedly, the same inquisitorial line of
questioning was used in the interrogation of On June 6, 2017, petitioners filed a Motion for
Gaor. When Gaor answered that she could Provisional Release based on petitioners'
no longer remember if she received a cash constitutional right to bail. Detabali, through the
advance of P18,600,000.00 for the purchase of OSG, opposed the motion.
40 units of minicab, Gaor was likewise cited in
contempt and ordered detained. At the hearing set on June 8, 2017, Detabali
again failed to attend. On June 9, 2017, the
The same threats, intimidation and coercion CA issued a Resolution denying Detabali's
were likewise supposedly employed on motion to dissolve the writ of Habeas Corpus
Calajate when she was asked by Fariñas if she and granting petitioners' Motion for
signed a cash advance voucher in the amount of Provisional Release upon posting of a bond.
P18,600,000.00 for the purchase of the 40 units Attempts to serve said Resolution and Order
of minicabs. When Calajate refused to answer, of Release Upon Bond to Detabali were made
she was also cited in contempt and ordered but to no avail.
detained.
On June 20, 2017, the House of
When Battulayan could no longer recall Representatives called a special session for
having signed a cash advance voucher for the continuation of the legislative inquiry. On
the purchase of minicabs, she was also cited in the same day, House Committee unanimously
contempt and ordered detained. voted to issue a Show Cause Order against
the three Justices of the CA's Special Fourth
Claims of Respondents Fariñas: Division, directing them to explain why they
should not be cited in contempt by the House
Respondents aver that petitioners were of Representatives.
evasive in answering questions and simply
claimed not to remember the specifics of the The House of Representatives was
subject transactions. apparently dismayed over the CA's actions in
the Habeas Corpus Petition, with House
According to respondents, petitioners Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez quoted as calling
requested to be confronted with the original the involved CA Justices "mga gago" and
documents to refresh their memories when threatening to dissolve the CA.
they knew beforehand that the Commission
on Audit (COA) to which the original vouchers On July 13, 2017 and while the Habeas Corpus
were submitted could no longer find the Petition was still pending before the CA,
same. petitioners and co-petitioner Marcos filed the
instant Omnibus Petition.
On May 30, 2017, petitioners filed a Petition
for Habeas Corpus against respondent During the congressional hearing on July 25,
House Sergeant-at-Arms Lieutenant General 2017 which petitioners and co-petitioner Marcos
Detabali (Detabali) before the CA. attended, and while the present Omnibus
Petition is pending final resolution by the
On June 2, 2017, the CA in its Resolution Court, respondent House Committee lifted
issued a writ of Habeas Corpus ordering the contempt order and ordered the release
Detabali to produce the bodies of the of petitioners.
petitioners before the court on June 5, 2017.
2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | 2019-2020 | NENGASCA, PAMM
3
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | 2019-2020 | NENGASCA, PAMM
On the other hand, co-petitioner Marcos seeks Congress' Power to Cite in Contempt and to
the protective writ of Amparo on the ground Compel Attendance of Court Justices
that her right to liberty and security are being
threatened by the conduct of the legislative These Congressional powers are indeed
inquiry on House Resolution No. 882. But even awesome. Yet, such could not be used to
these claims of actual and threatened deprive the Court of its Constitutional duty to
violations of the right to liberty and security supervise judges of lower courts in the
fail to impress. performance of their official duties.
To reiterate, the writ of Amparo is designed to The fact remains that the CA Justices are
protect and guarantee the (1) right to life; (2) non-impeachable officers. As such, authority
right to liberty; and (3) right to security of over them primarily belongs to this Court
persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate and to no other.
the quality of life.
The principle of separation of powers also
By way of caution, the rule is that a writ of serves as one of the basic postulates for
Amparo shall not issue on amorphous and exempting the Justices, officials and
uncertain grounds. Consequently, every employees of the Judiciary and for excluding
petition for the issuance of a writ of Amparo the Judiciary's privileged and confidential
should be supported by justifying allegations documents and information from any
of fact. compulsory processes which very well
includes the Congress' power of inquiry in
Even more telling is the rule that the writ of aid of legislation. Such exemption has been
Amparo cannot be issued in cases where the jurisprudentially referred to as judicial
alleged threat has ceased and is no longer privilege as implied from the exercise of judicial
imminent or continuing. power expressly vested in one Supreme Court
and lower courts created by law.
In this case, the alleged unlawful restraint on
petitioners' liberty has effectively ceased As in all privileges, the exercise thereof is not
upon their subsequent release from without limitations. The invocation of the
detention. Court's judicial privilege is understood to be
limited to matters that are part of the internal
On the other hand, the apprehension of deliberations and actions of the Court in the
co-petitioner Marcos that she will be exercise of the Members' adjudicatory
detained is, at best, merely speculative. In functions and duties.
other words, co-petitioner Marcos has failed
to show any clear threat to her right to liberty Judicial privilege is unavailing on matters
actionable through a petition for a writ of external to the Judiciary's deliberative
Amparo. adjudicatory functions and duties.
4
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | 2019-2020 | NENGASCA, PAMM