QuestionsQuestions (EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 263)
It is issued pursuant to Section 16 of Republic Act No. 242. It prescribes the procedure for the review of court-martial cases where the accused are members of the Philippine Constabulary and directs the disposition/transmittal of the records.
The Judge Advocate of the Philippine Constabulary constitutes, in his office, a board of review consisting of one or more officers assigned with the Judge Advocate Section, Philippine Constabulary.
Before any record of trial where the accused has been adjudged a sentence requiring approval or confirmation by the President under Articles 45, 47, or 51 of the relevant Articles of War.
The board submits its opinions in writing to the Judge Advocate of the Constabulary, who transmits the record and the board’s opinion with his recommendations to the Chief of Constabulary for action of the President.
No authority shall order execution of (a) death, (b) dismissal not suspended, (c) dishonorable discharge not suspended, or (d) confinement in a penitentiary, unless and until the Board of Review (with the approval of the Judge Advocate of the Constabulary) holds the record legally sufficient to support the sentence.
Execution may be ordered (upon approval by the proper reviewing/confirming authority) if the sentence is based solely on findings of guilty of charges and specifications to which the accused has pleaded guilty.
The Judge Advocate advises the reviewing or confirming authority from whom the record was received, and the authority may then order execution of the sentence.
The findings and sentence shall be vacated in whole or in part in accord with the board’s holding and recommendations, and the record is transmitted through proper channels to the convening authority for a rehearing or such other proper action.
The Judge Advocate forwards all papers, including the Board’s opinion and his own dissent, directly to the Chief of Constabulary for action of the President, who may confirm, disapprove, vacate, and/or grant remission, mitigation, or commutation as may be proper.
Yes. The President may authorize or direct a rehearing. The rehearing must take place before a court composed of officers not members of the court that first heard the case.
The accused shall not be tried for any offense of which he was found not guilty by the first court. Also, no sentence in excess of or more severe than the original sentence shall be imposed unless the sentence is based on a finding of guilty of an offense not considered on the merits in the original proceedings.
Yes, it is provided that rehearing shall be had in all cases where a finding and sentence have been vacated due to legally insufficient record or injurious errors of law, UNLESS the findings/sentence are approved only in part, or the record is returned for revision, or the case is dismissed by order of the reviewing/confirming authority.
After examination by the Board of Review, the record is transmitted by the Judge Advocate of the Constabulary with the Board’s opinion and recommendations to the Chief of Constabulary for Presidential action.
Every record of trial by general court-martial of the Constabulary, examination of which is not provided for earlier, is still examined in the office of the Judge Advocate of the Constabulary; if legally insufficient, it is examined by the Board of Review, which then may submit a written opinion to the Judge Advocate.
The President may approve, disapprove, or vacate findings of guilty; confirm, mitigate, commute, remit, or vacate sentences (in whole or in part); direct execution as confirmed/modified; and restore the accused to rights affected by findings/sentence held invalid.
Whenever necessary, the Judge Advocate of the Constabulary may constitute two or more boards of review in his office, with equal powers and duties.
All records of trial of general or special court-martial of the Constabulary, after having been acted upon, shall be transmitted to the Judge Advocate of the Constabulary.
Charges against Armed Forces units detailed/employed to assist the Philippine Constabulary are triable by Philippine Constabulary courts-martial; their review under Articles 47 and 51 is undertaken by the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army. Vice versa, charges against Philippine Constabulary units detailed/employed to assist the Armed Forces are triable by Armed Forces courts-martial, but the review is the responsibility of the Office of the Judge Advocate of the Constabulary under the procedure prescribed by the Order.