SC junks petition seeking to hold Guingona in contempt

The Supreme Court dismissed yesterday petition asking to declare in contempt former Vice President Teofisto Guingona for setting up the so-called "people’s court" after the petitioner failed to show that he had sent a copy to Guingona.

A separate petition filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano also seeking to hold Guingona in contempt based on the same allegations is still pending before the Supreme Court.

In an en banc resolution, the Supreme Court said the petitioner, lawyer Fernando Rueda Perito, did not comply with the requirements of Rule 65 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure when he filed the petition.

"On the basis thereof, the Court resolved to dismiss the instant petition for prohibition for non-compliance therewith, particularly for non-submission of proof of service, e.g., written admission of the party served, or the affidavit of the party serving, or the registry receipts, of the petition on the adverse party as required by Rule 56, Section 2 (1st paragraph), and Rule 13, Section 13," read the Court’s ruling.

"Only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained."

In his petition, Perito accused Guingona of mocking the judiciary when he formed the Citizens’ Congress for Truth and Accountability, or People’s Court.

"Respondents are the same faces who are either friends and sycophants of the old unpopular leaders, or who have personal agenda for themselves who banded together to topple the incumbent president, and failing in several widely-proclaimed calls for national awakening after presenting one issue after another, including a failed coup d’état and the last being the impeachment moves, are never in the good mood… to observe and respect the law," read the petition.

"Hence, they resorted to come up with a court, otherwise (known as) a People’s Court, to hear, try and to expose what they perceived as gross and blatant irregularities of the presidency."

Perito said the Constitution provides that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts, as may be established by law.

"Respondents put up the People’s Court with one motivating purpose and that is to charge and convict the President by publicity," read the petition.

"The respondents want their prey or accused to be adjudged from their own findings," he said.

Perito said Guingona’s actuation, if not corrected, would encourage rampant circumvention of the law.

"(They) palpably distort the correct interpretation and intention of the Constitution," read the petition.

"Certainly, the right they are claiming does not call for an establishment of a People’s Court, where a group of citizens… well-meaning or otherwise would just group themselves noisily in the streets before the agitating media for free publicity and would put up its own court.

"They despicably, and in a surly demonstration of guts, start accusing an official."

Perito said the rules of procedure on special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

"If such contemptuous acts are not rectified by the Honorable Supreme Court, anybody can start creating noise and form a group to circumvent the law to put up a People’s Court and start reviving cases against the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court or any other public officers," read the petition.

Perito said the People’s Court violated the Constitution, which granted the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning constitutional rights, pleadings, practice and court procedures.

"That People’s Court is no court at all but a Kangaroo Court, hence, its decisions are not in accordance with section 14 of Article VIII (judicial department) of the Constitution which provide that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the fact on which it is based.

"We therefore have in our midst a mob court ruled by a mob. The People’s Court had arrogated to it(self the role of) prosecutor and the judge altogether.

"The existence of their People’s Court is, therefore, annoying, unlawful, confusing, usurping, disturbing, if not seditious. In its end, it is totally unconstitutional. This has to be stopped immediately."

The 15-member People’s Court, also called the Citizen’s Congress by its organizers, began last September hearings on the alleged electoral fraud committed during the May 10, 2004 elections following the failed impeachment complaint against President Arroyo in the House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jamby Madrigal filed yesterday two counter-affidavits before the Manila Prosecutor’s Office to deny charges of illegal assembly and violation of a city ordinance penalizing obstruction of city streets. — Jose Rodel Clapano, Evelyn Macairan