The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
|
|---|
Ang Cho Kio was convicted of various offenses and was granted conditional pardon in 1959. He was never to return to the Philippines. In violation of his pardon, he returned in 1966 under the name "Ang Ming Huy". However, he was identified by an inspector of the Immigration Bureau. Thus, he was arrested. The Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, ordered him recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence that were imposed on him, for having violated the conditioned of his pardon.
He filed a petition for habeas corpus which the CFI of Rizal denied. The CA affirmed the decision but made a recommendation that Ang may be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation abroad.
The Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration praying for the deletion of the recommendation. The Solicitor General maintains that the recommendation is not a part of the decision and was uncalled for; that it gives the decision a political complexion, because courts are not empowered to make such a recommendation, nor is it inherent or incidental in the exercise of judicial powers. He also contends that allowing convicted aliens to leave the country is an act of the state exercises solely in the discretion of the Chief Executive. It is urged that the act of sending an undesirable alien out of the country is political in character, and the courts should not interfere with, nor attempt to influence, the political acts of the President.
Issues:
He filed a petition for habeas corpus which the CFI of Rizal denied. The CA affirmed the decision but made a recommendation that Ang may be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation abroad.
The Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration praying for the deletion of the recommendation. The Solicitor General maintains that the recommendation is not a part of the decision and was uncalled for; that it gives the decision a political complexion, because courts are not empowered to make such a recommendation, nor is it inherent or incidental in the exercise of judicial powers. He also contends that allowing convicted aliens to leave the country is an act of the state exercises solely in the discretion of the Chief Executive. It is urged that the act of sending an undesirable alien out of the country is political in character, and the courts should not interfere with, nor attempt to influence, the political acts of the President.
Issues:
1. Was the CA decision was proper?
2. Can the CA make recommendations?
2. Can the CA make recommendations?
Held:
1. No. The case before the CA was for habeas corpus. The only question to be resolved by the CA was whether, or not, the CFI of Rizal, had rightly dismissed the petition of Ang Cho Kio for habeas corpus. The CA was not called upon to review any sentence imposed upon Ang Cho Kio. The sentence against him had long become final, and, in fact, he was pardoned. The majority opinion should have been limited to the affirmance of the decision of the lower court, and no more.
2. The recommendatory power of the courts in this jurisdiction are limited to those expressly provided in the law — and such law is the provision of Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code as follows:
It was improper for the CA justices to make a recommendation that would suggest a modification or a correction of the act of the Chief Executive. The matter of whether an alien who violated the laws in this country may remain or be deported is a political question that should be left entirely to the Chief Executive to decide. Under the principle of separation of powers, it is not within the province of the judiciary to express an opinion, or express a suggestion, that would reflect on the wisdom or propriety of the action of the Chief Executive on matters purely political in nature.
After all, courts are not concerned with the wisdom or morality of laws, but only in the interpretation and application of the law. We believe that judges should refrain from expressing irrelevant opinions in their decisions which may only reflect unfavorably upon their competence and the propriety of their judicial actuations. (Director of Prisons vs. Ang Cho Kio, G.R. No. L-30001, June 23, 1970)
1. No. The case before the CA was for habeas corpus. The only question to be resolved by the CA was whether, or not, the CFI of Rizal, had rightly dismissed the petition of Ang Cho Kio for habeas corpus. The CA was not called upon to review any sentence imposed upon Ang Cho Kio. The sentence against him had long become final, and, in fact, he was pardoned. The majority opinion should have been limited to the affirmance of the decision of the lower court, and no more.
2. The recommendatory power of the courts in this jurisdiction are limited to those expressly provided in the law — and such law is the provision of Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code as follows:
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.Certainly, the recommendation in the majority opinion of the special division of the CA, now in question, is not authorized under the aforequoted provision of Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code. The CA was not called upon to review any sentence that was imposed on Ang Cho Kio. It was simply called upon to determine whether Ang Cho Kio was illegally confined, or not, in the insular penitentiary under the Director of Prisons.
It was improper for the CA justices to make a recommendation that would suggest a modification or a correction of the act of the Chief Executive. The matter of whether an alien who violated the laws in this country may remain or be deported is a political question that should be left entirely to the Chief Executive to decide. Under the principle of separation of powers, it is not within the province of the judiciary to express an opinion, or express a suggestion, that would reflect on the wisdom or propriety of the action of the Chief Executive on matters purely political in nature.
After all, courts are not concerned with the wisdom or morality of laws, but only in the interpretation and application of the law. We believe that judges should refrain from expressing irrelevant opinions in their decisions which may only reflect unfavorably upon their competence and the propriety of their judicial actuations. (Director of Prisons vs. Ang Cho Kio, G.R. No. L-30001, June 23, 1970)
0 Comments
Post a Comment