Case Summary (A.M. No. 88-4-5433)
Background and Procedural History
On March 16, 1988, Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez forwarded a first indorsement to Justice Marcelo B. Fernan involving a letter-complaint allegedly from "Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court" and a telegram from Mr. Miguel Cuenco. The letter called for action regarding Cuenco’s disbarment charges against Justice Fernan. Cuenco had also filed pleadings with the Supreme Court on February 29, 1988, relevant to Administrative Case No. 3135, in which he apparently challenged any intervention by Gonzalez but simultaneously urged the filing of responsive pleadings with the Supreme Court en banc.
Supreme Court’s Previous Resolution and Actions
The Supreme Court had previously resolved on February 17, 1988, to dismiss Cuenco’s disbarment charges against Justice Fernan for utter lack of merit in Administrative Case No. 3135. The decision also required Cuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively sanctioned for making unfounded serious accusations. Cuenco was granted an extension until March 30, 1988, to file a motion for reconsideration, which he did on March 28. This motion was treated accordingly and ultimately denied with finality by a per curiam resolution dated April 15, 1988.
Constitutional Principle Governing Disbarment and Criminal Charges
The Court underscored a fundamental constitutional principle: A public officer holding an office requiring membership in the Philippine Bar and removable solely by impeachment cannot be subjected to disbarment or criminal charges carrying penalties that equate to removal from office while still in incumbency. Article VIII, Section 7(1), and Article XI, Sections 2 and 3, of the 1987 Constitution protect constitutional officers like members of the Supreme Court by requiring impeachment as the exclusive mode of removal.
Rationale and Precedent Discussion
The Court emphasized that allowing disbarment or similar proceedings against constitutional officers like Justice Fernan during their incumbency would circumvent the constitutionally mandated impeachment process. The ruling analogized the situation to other constitutional officers such as the Ombudsman, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit members, who also enjoy protection under their respective constitutional provisions.
The Court invoked prior jurisprudence in Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, which interpreted the 1973 Constitution’s impeachment provisions in parallel terms, affirming that the exclusive remedy for removal and disqualification of constitutional officers is impeachment. It clarified that while impeachment results only in removal and disqualification, the officer is still liable to subsequent criminal prosecution after removal. However, no criminal charges carrying removal penalties may proceed while the officer remains in office.
Clarification on Immunity and Judicial Independence
The Court clarified that its decision does not grant immunity from liability or ethical accountability to constitutional officers, including Supreme Court Justices. Instead, it establishes a procedural safeguard whereby determination of liability, whether criminal or administrative, requires prior removal through impeachment. This rule serves to protect judicial independence and the principle of separation of powers by insulating justices from coercive or vexatious actions that could affect the exercise of judicial functions.
Direction and Finality of the Resolution
The Court directed immediate dismissal of any charges against Justice Fernan while he remains in office, reaffirming that the proper remedy for grievances against constitutional officers is the initiation of impeachment proceedings. The Cle
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 88-4-5433)
Background and Procedural History
- The case involves the 1st Indorsement dated 16 March 1988 from Raul M. Gonzalez, the Tanodbayan/Special Prosecutor, forwarding to Justice Marcelo B. Fernan an anonymous letter-complaint dated 14 December 1987 from the "Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court" and a telegram from Miguel Cuenco.
- The Indorsement requests Justice Fernan's comment within ten days, bearing important policy implications.
- The anonymous letter alleges charges for the disbarment of Justice Marcelo B. Fernan filed by Miguel Cuenco, urging action from Mr. Gonzalez.
- Miguel Cuenco’s telegram, addressed to Mr. Gonzalez, referred to pleadings supposedly filed on 29 February 1988 with the Supreme Court concerning Administrative Case No. 3135, which he claimed precluded Mr. Gonzalez from intervening.
- Despite this, Cuenco encouraged Gonzalez to file a responsive pleading with the Supreme Court en banc to comply with a petition from the concerned employees asking for Tanodbayan's intervention.
Supreme Court’s Actions on the Matter
- The Court directed the Clerk of Court to furnish Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez a copy of the Court’s per curiam Resolution dated 17 February 1988 in Administrative Case No. 3135 (“Miguel Cuenco v. Honorable Marcelo B. Fernan”).
- The Court’s February 17, 1988 Resolution dismissed Cuenco’s disbarment charges against Justice Fernan as utterly meritless.
- The Resolution also ordered Cuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively sanctioned for making serious but unfounded accusations against Justice Fernan.
- Cuenco was granted an extension until 30 March 1988 to file a Motion for Reconsideration.
- Cuenco filed an omnibus pleading on 28 March 1988, which the Court treated as a Motion for Reconsideration specifically relating to Administrative Case No. 3135.
- By a per curiam Resolution dated 15 April 1988, the Court denied Cuenco’s Motion for Reconsideration with finality.
Constitutional Law Principle on Disbarment and Impeachment
- The Court emphasized a paramount constitutional principle concerning public officers.
- A public officer constitutionally required to be a member of the Philippine Bar, like Supreme Court Justices, who can only be removed by impeachment, cannot be subjected to disbarment proceedings during their incumbency.
- Likewise, such public officers cannot be criminally charged in courts such as the Sandiganbayan for offenses that carry the penalty of removal from office during their incumbency.
- The Court's 17 February 1988 Resolution underscored that granting disbarment or criminal charges to sitting justices circumvents the constitutional mandate that S