Case digests on Art XI - NOT MINE
Re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 (1988)
Fast factsRaul Gonzales forwarded an anonymous letter by “Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court” to Justice Fernan. Theletter was addressed to Gonzales referring to charges for disbarment brought by Miguel Cuenco against Justice Fernan andasking “to do something about this.” The action against Fernan was filed in the Tanodbayan. Tanodbayan – special prosecutor like a fiscal; ombudsman.Administrative Case No. 3135Resolution dated February 1988 entitled “Miguel Cuenco v Honorable Marcelo B. Fernan” in which Resolution, the Courtresolved to dismiss the charges made by Cuenco against Fernan for utter lack of merit. The Court resolved to requireCuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for making unfounded serious accusations againstFernan.Important principles of AC 3135Article 8, Section 7 (1987 Constitution). A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of thePhilippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.Lecaroz v Sandiganbayan. Proscribes the removal from office of the aforementioned constitutional officers by any other method; otherwise, to allow a public officer who may be removed solely by impeachment to be charged criminally whileholding his office with an offense that carries the penalty of removal from office, would be violative of the clear mandate of the fundamental law.Impeachment first, before criminal and other actions. There is fundamental procedural requirement that must be observed before such liability may be determined and enforced. The Court is not saying that a Member of the SC is absolutely immune from disbarment and criminal actions against him. It is just that, this member must first be removed from office viaimpeachment proceedings before other actions will prosper against him. Should the tenure of the SC
Fast factsRaul Gonzales forwarded an anonymous letter by “Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court” to Justice Fernan. Theletter was addressed to Gonzales referring to charges for disbarment brought by Miguel Cuenco against Justice Fernan andasking “to do something about this.” The action against Fernan was filed in the Tanodbayan. Tanodbayan – special prosecutor like a fiscal; ombudsman.Administrative Case No. 3135Resolution dated February 1988 entitled “Miguel Cuenco v Honorable Marcelo B. Fernan” in which Resolution, the Courtresolved to dismiss the charges made by Cuenco against Fernan for utter lack of merit. The Court resolved to requireCuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for making unfounded serious accusations againstFernan.Important principles of AC 3135Article 8, Section 7 (1987 Constitution). A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of thePhilippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.Lecaroz v Sandiganbayan. Proscribes the removal from office of the aforementioned constitutional officers by any other method; otherwise, to allow a public officer who may be removed solely by impeachment to be charged criminally whileholding his office with an offense that carries the penalty of removal from office, would be violative of the clear mandate of the fundamental law.Impeachment first, before criminal and other actions. There is fundamental procedural requirement that must be observed before such liability may be determined and enforced. The Court is not saying that a Member of the SC is absolutely immune from disbarment and criminal actions against him. It is just that, this member must first be removed from office viaimpeachment proceedings before other actions will prosper against him. Should the tenure of the SC