Is Mayor Osmeña in trouble?

Malacañang did right in choosing Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court following the seniority practice. Castro replaced Maria Lourdes Sereno, who was booted out via quo warranto.

De Castro was one of the SC justices who testified in the impeachment complaint filed against Sereno in the House of Representatives. She was also one of the justices who voted to oust Sereno via the quo warranto petition the Office of the Solicitor General filed.

But Malacañang strongly denied talks that De Castro’s appointment was a reward for her help in the ouster of Sereno. De Castro will retire in October this year when she reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70.

Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio could have been the new chief justice had he applied for the post. But he did not apply because of his stand that SC justices can only be removed by impeachment and not by quo warranto.

Although some say seniority is not mandatory, but this was the practice before Sereno was appointed chief justice. She was the youngest among the justices when former president Noynoy Aquino appointed her. Using seniority as basis in appointing the chief justice could perhaps avoid resentment among peers.

De Castro was one of those who bore a grudge when Sereno, being the youngest among the justices, applied and was appointed chief justice after the late Renato Corona was impeached. So De Castro now has the last laugh.

Did Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña violate a law when he sought custody of the two men detained at the Parian Police Station for selling butane canisters refilled with LPG? The Cebu City Police Office will be pressing charges for obstruction of justice, grave abuse of authority, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against Mayor Tomas.

RA No. 10389, passed and approved on March 14, 2013, institutionalized recognizance as a mode of granting the release of an indigent person accused in a criminal case. It is also known as the “Recognizance Act of 2012.”

Section 3 of RA 10389 defines recognizance as “a mode of securing the release of any person in custody or detention for the commission of an offense but is unable to post bail due to abject poverty. The court where the case of such person has been filed shall allow the release of the accused on recognizance, as provided herein, to the custody of a qualified member of the barangay, city or municipality where the accused resides.

Section 5, the release on recognizance is a matter of right guaranteed by the Constitution when the offense is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment: Provided that the accused or any person on behalf of the accused files the application for such: (a) Before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial Court; and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court: Provided, further that a person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, or any modifying circumstance, shall be released on the person’s recognizance.

It’s apparent that Mayor Tomas did not consult a lawyer when he asked for the release of the detained persons. While the law allows recognizance but a procedure has to be followed. Vice Mayor Ed Labella was right when he said Mayor Tomas should have asked a lawyer to do the job.