No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence. (Sec. 30, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
|
|---|
Fabian filed an administrative charge for grave misconduct against Agustin committed by him as then DPWH Assistant Regional Director of Region IV-A. The Ombudsman found Agustin guilty but upon reconsideration, he was exonerated.
Fabian elevated the case to the SC, arguing that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) provides that all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue:
Fabian elevated the case to the SC, arguing that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) provides that all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue:
May administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman be appealed to the Supreme Court without its advise and concurrence?
Held:
No. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It violates the proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The constitutional prohibition was intended to give this Court a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate Jurisdiction.Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the Court.
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 was declared INVALID. (Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742. September 16, 1998)
No. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It violates the proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The constitutional prohibition was intended to give this Court a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate Jurisdiction.Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the Court.
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 was declared INVALID. (Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742. September 16, 1998)
1 Comments
Very well said
ReplyDeletePost a Comment