Supreme Court PIO chief denies ‘No more appeals’ report

This refers to the report that was published today (April 8), in print and online (http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/04/08/928174/sc-no-more-appeals-party-list-ruling; last accessed 8 April 2013, 10:15 a.m.), with the headline, “SC: No More Appeals on Party-List Ruling” written by your Justice beat reporter, Mr. Edu Punay.

We wish to state that no such statement (“No More Appeals on Party-List Ruling”) was ever made by the Court in its Decision promulgated on 2 April 2013, with copy made accessible online on 5 April 2013 through the SC website. Neither could any such statement be inferred from the ruling. Certainly, the PIO has never made such a statement. For this reason, the headline is without basis especially where it attributes the statement to the Court, whether directly or by implication.

We also wish to state that, while statements were attributed to me in the first eight paragraphs following the headline, I was never interviewed on this matter from April 5, when the Decision was first released, to the time of this writing. Since I assumed the post as Chief of the Public Information Office (PIO), I have always been very careful to not make any statements that may be attributable to the Court, unless I had been specifically authorized to do so. As I was not so authorized in this instance, I did not grant any interviews on this matter, choosing instead to only provide the usual summaries that the PIO issues.

Thus, for the record, may I ask that the following matters be corrected, thus:

The Supreme Court (SC) will no longer entertain any appeal over its decision on the party-list system, the spokesman for the high court said.

“It means no more appeal or MR (motion for reconsideration) will be entertained by the court,” SC spokesman Theodore Te told The STAR yesterday.

x x x

He said the ruling that allows groups not representing “marginalized and underrepresented sectors” to participate in the elections is “immediately executory” and should therefore be enforced right away.

“The court makes a decision immediately executory when there’s urgency to enforce it – just like in this case; the relief prayed for by petitioners was urgent since there are only a few weeks left before the polls. That’s why the court will no longer entertain an appeal,” he explained.

Te clarified that “immediately executory” is not the same as “final and executory” — a ruling that is ready to be placed in the high court’s entry of judgment.

He said a final and executory ruling is applied to cases that have gone through the appeal processes in the court, including the resolution of MR.

“In case of rulings with ‘immediately executory’ clause, the aggrieved party may opt to file an appeal, but the high court will only act on it procedurally. In all previous cases, the high court never reconsidered,” Te explained.

While I had been asked by Mr. Punay previously on the difference between the legal concepts of “immediately executory” and “final and executory,” it was in connection with another case and the explanation given to him was contextual and only in relation to that case (the Court, in that case, gave a reason why it was “immediately executory.”). Even then, I do not recall having said that no appeal could be filed in immediately executory cases as, in fact, I recall precisely saying that a motion for reconsideration could still be filed but until it is granted, a decision that is declared to be “immediately executory” precisely takes effect at once and remains in effect, until the Court says otherwise.

The way the April 8 news report was written, however, it is made to appear that the statements were given in relation to the Atong Paglaum decision. I was never interviewed on this case and, thus, never made those statements. For this reason, the item is misleading; it is also untrue.

I have been instructed to ask that the item be immediately corrected and that an explanation be provided. May I request that this letter be published and that the appropriate corrections be made within the soonest possible time.

I trust that this matter may be given your most preferential attention. — THEODORE O. TE, Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, Supreme Court

(STAR reporter Edu Punay interviewed Theodore Te by phone last Friday and says Te was accurately quoted.)