advertisement
Filtered By: News
News

SC defers ruling on controversial cases


The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred voting on controversial cases currently pending before it, including two that involved President Benigno Aquino III’s executive orders, according to court spokesman and administrator Jose Midas Marquez. In its first en banc (full court) session this year, the SC decided to "call again" for next week its deliberations on the following due to time constraints:
  • Malacañang's motion for reconsideration on the high court's ruling voiding Executive Order No. 1, which created a special panel that would have investigated corruption scandals and election cheating allegations that hounded former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s rule.
  • The consolidated petitions questioning the legality of EO 2, which voided the more than 900 so-called midnight appointments of Arroyo.
  • The petition of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who is seeking to prevent the House of Representatives' justice committee from hearing the two impeachment complaints against her. Gutierrez argued that the 1987 Constitution prohibits the House panel from holding two impeachment proceedings within one year.
  • The compliance (answer) of the 37 University of the Philippines law professors who risk disciplinary action from the high court for airing their sentiment against an SC magistrate embroiled in a plagiarism issue.
  • The motion for reconsideration filed by the “Abadilla 5," referring to the five men — SPO2 Cesar Fortuna, Rameses de Jesus, Lenido Lumanog, Joel de Jesus, and Augusto Santos — convicted for the killing of former Col. Rolando Abadilla, former head of the Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine Constabulary (now the Philippine National Police). The conviction was upheld by the SC.
  • The motion for reconsideration of veteran election lawyer Romulo Macalintal, whose bid to abolish the Presidential Electoral Tribunal was denied by the tribunal last year. – Sophia Dedace/KBK, GMANews.TV
  • Tags: supremecourt
    LOADING CONTENT