Massacre case verdict ‘highlight of busy year for judiciary’

It was a busy year for the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice (DoJ). The conviction and acquittal of dozens charged in the Maguindanao massacre case, the controversial implementation of the Good Conduct Time Allowance and the appointment of a new chief justice were some of the stories that made headlines in 2019.

Diosdado Peralta was appointed chief justice in October, replacing Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin. Shortly after taking his post, Peralta vowed to seek protection for judges amid the series of killings of members of the bench. The 26th chief justice urged Congress to pass a law that would give protection to judges.

The Supreme Court breathed life into some cases that were deemed hopeless, such as the alleged involvement of thenPresident Benigno Aquino 3rd in the death of 44 members of the Special Action Force in the Mamasapano siege in 2015. The court allowed the Office of the Ombudsman to withdraw the criminal charges against Aquino and lifted the Temporary Restraining Order it issued that halted the arraignment and trial of the former president for the simple crime of usurpation of authority.

The decision will give the Sandiganbayan a free hand to rule on the plea of Ombudsman Samuel Martires to withdraw the sloppy and “weak” criminal charges filed by former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales against Aquino.

The high court also revived the case filed against Sulpicio Lines in connection with the sinking of the M/V Princess of the Stars in 2008 that claimed the lives of 227 passengers.

The tribunal ordered the revival of the criminal charges and allowed the consolidation of the cases, which was pushed by the families of the victims and Public Attorney’s Office Chief Persida Rueda Acosta.

In another case, the tribunal allowed the taking of the testimony of convicted drug trafficker Mary Jane Veloso against her recruiters by way of deposition in Indonesia. It reinstated and affirmed with modification the ruling of the lower court and ordered that the deposition of Veloso be taken before the Philippine Consular Office and officials in Indonesia pursuant to the Rules of Court and principles of jurisdiction.

Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th was a frequent visitor of the courts because of several cases he is facing.

The Court of Appeals (CA) junked his plea for a stay order that would halt his prosecution in connection with the rebellion case that stemmed from the Manila Peninsula siege.

Because of this, the Makati Regional Trial Court can now proceed with the trial of the case after President Rodrigo Duterte revoked the amnesty bestowed by Aquino.

Early this year, the DoJ and the Office of the Solicitor General elevated to the CA their bid to revive the coup d’etat case against Trillanes over his participation in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny.

One person who also made headlines was Joemel Advincula, also known as “Bikoy” or “Peter Joemel Advincula.” In August, he sought protection under the Witness Protection Programme after claiming that the opposition used him to discredit the Duterte administration.

Charges of libel, cyberlibel, inciting to sedition and obstruction of justice were filed against Advincula, Vice President Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo, Trillanes, senators Ana Theresia “Risa” Hontiveros and Leila de Lima, as well as defeated senatorial candidates Romulo Macalintal, Florin Hilbay and Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines was dragged into the Bikoy controversy for allowing Advincula to use its facilities and resources in holding a news conference to attack the Duterte administration and link the first family to illegal drugs.

The high court also ruled on several controversial issues such as same sex marriage, good conduct time allowance and other issues of public importance.

The court, in dismissing the petition to allow same-sex marriage filed by Jesus Nicardo Falcis 3rd, said there was no “justiciable controversy.”

The Supreme Court said it “recognised the protracted history of discrimination and marginalisation faced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, queer, intersex, and other gender and sexual minorities (LGBTQIA+) community” but pointed out that the matter should be tackled by Congress.

The court also mandated the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and the power utilities to observe a competitive selection process (CSP) as it ruled that all Power Supply Agreements submitted on or after 30 June 2015 must undergo a CSP.

The high court opined that the ERC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it unilaterally postponed the effectivity of the CSP requirement.

On the internal revenue allotment (IRA) share of local government units, the court en banc upheld its decision in July 2018 that the “just share” of local government units (LGUs) must be computed based on all national taxes, and not only on national internal revenue taxes collected by the Bureau of Internal

Revenue (BIR). The case reached the Supreme Court when Batangas Gov. Hermilando Mandanas assailed the BIR’s wrong computation.

The Supreme Court ruled that the IRA of LGUs should include tariff and duties collected by the Bureau of Customs, 50% of value-added tax, 30% of national taxes collected in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, 60% of national taxes collected from the exploitation and development of national wealth, 85% of excise tax from tobacco products, and a portion of franchise tax under Republic Acts 6631 and 6632 (horse racing laws), among others.

In the electoral case filed by former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr against Robredo, the high court, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), rejected the latter’s plea to dismiss the complaint outright.The case was raffled off to Justice Mario Victor “Marvic” Leonen after the PET ordered the replacement of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa who wanted out as ponente.

The PET kept the case alive when it junked Robredo’s appeal to dismiss the electoral case, deciding to release to the parties the report on the revision and appreciation of ballots in the three pilot provinces and require them to file their comment.