Pantaleon Alvarez
Senators cautioned on Saturday Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez against flexing legislative muscle to abolish the Court of Appeals (CA) just because he disagreed with its decision to release six Ilocos Norte officials and employees cited for contempt and detained at the House of Representatives.
Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III said Alvarez was “theoretically” correct in saying that the second highest tribunal in the country, being a creation of a law, could be dissolved because any law could be repealed.
Expressing reservations about the idea being pushed by Alvarez, the Senate leader said he had his own plan, in which the CA would still have a crucial role but would still have the same goal to expedite the disposition of cases in the country.
“We already talked about this. I told him (Alvarez) to develop first his position because I also have a different idea,” Pimentel said in a radio interview yesterday, adding that he was planning to introduce the “one appeal” concept to the Constitution.
Under this concept, litigants have the right to an appeal but cases handled by the municipal trial courts will go straight to the CA for review instead of going through the regional trial courts (RTCs), he said.
“That’s where are our ideas differ. For Speaker Alvarez, the disposition of cases will be quicker if the CA will be abolished and cases from the regional trial courts will go straight to the SC,” he said.
“But let him develop his idea because my reservation there is the SC might be swamped with appeals from the RTCs,” he added.
Controversy
Pimentel said he and Alvarez had discussed the streamlining of the judicial process in the country even before the unfavorable decision of the CA on the so-called Ilocos 6.
The controversy started when the CA Special Fourth Division granted the habeas corpus petition of six Ilocos Norte officials and employees who were cited for contempt and ordered detained at the House of Representatives.
They earned the ire of Alvarez and Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, the House majority leader, for refusing to answer questions during a House inquiry into the allegedly irregular procurement of P66.45 million worth of vehicles by the provincial government.
Acting on the Ilocos officials’ petition for the writ of habeas corpus through lawyer Estelito Mendoza, the court on June 9 ordered their release on bail. But the House defied the CA order three times with Alvarez calling the members of the court’s fourth division a bunch of idiots and accusing them of “gross ignorance of the law.”
Pimentel, however, said this was not about the Ilocos 6.
“If you will let him elaborate his idea, we will see that this is not all about the Ilocos 6, but his idea is about how to speed up the judicial process in the country, which I share and we have been studying this for a long time,” he said.
Minority leader Sen. Franklin Drilon vowed to oppose any move to dissolve the appellate court, saying it would affect the entire judicial system.
He also advised Alvarez to respect and follow the judicial process by seeking legal remedies under the law instead of resorting to threats.
‘Not right’
“It is not right to use the powers of Congress against the CA or any institution just because we do not agree with their decision. We may run out of courts if that were so,” said the four-time Senate president, noting that the Senate has had its share of victories and defeats in the courts over the years.
He also said the judicial institution should not be made to suffer from the errors of judgement or jurisdiction that judges and justices sometimes make.
“Any error that may have been committed by a division or by the members of the court should not be taken against the CA as an institution,” he said in a statement, adding that the dispute can be settled in the Supreme Court where both parties can argue their position.
He also emphasized that the appellate court has played a crucial role in upholding the Constitution and the rights of the people.
Sen. Francis Escudero echoed the same views, saying that whether or not a decision of any court was favorable to a party, it must still be followed.
“We have to follow no matter how wrong we believe that decision is or else there will be anarchy,” he said in a radio interview yesterday.
He said Alvarez might set a bad example if he used his power as speaker of the House to go against a court ruling.
“Others might think that they also have the power or the right to do such,” said Escudero.
“Whether we agree or not to a court decision, the remedy there is to appeal and question it. Not heeding a court ruling is not included in these multiple options,” he added.