Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUDGE MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS v. MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 180643 2008-09-04	ROMULO L. NERI v. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Respondent Committees argue as if this were the first time the presumption in favor of the presidential communications privilege is mentioned and adopted in our legal system. That is far from the truth. The Court, in the earlier case of Almonte v. Vasquez,[12] affirmed that the presidential communications privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution. Even Senate v. Ermita,[13] the case relied upon by respondent Committees, reiterated this concept. There, the Court enumerated the cases in which the claim of executive privilege was recognized, among them Almonte v. Chavez, Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG),[14] and Chavez v. PEA.[15] The Court articulated in these cases that "there are certain types of information which the government may withhold from the public,[16]" that there is a "governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security matters";[17] and that "the right to information does not extend to matters recognized as `privileged information' under the separation of powers, by which the Court meant Presidential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings."[18]
	AM No. RTJ-06-2030 2007-10-05	OCA v. JUDGE AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Instead of correcting the improvident issuance by the Clerk of Court, Judge Vestil issued the Order dated March 10, 2004, granting the dismissal of the petition. Judge Vestil, as aptly pointed out by the OCA, should have cancelled the hearing scheduled by him and reset it to another date. The failure of Judge Vestil to do so constitutes a blatant transgression of respondent's fundamental right to due process.[62]
	AM NO. RTJ-07-2047 2007-07-03	RUSSEL ESTEVA CORONADO v. JUDGE EDDIE R. ROJAS NACHURA, J.
Also, Judge Rojas encroached upon complainantsï¿½ right to due process of law, as enshrined in the Constitution, as they were not given an opportunity to be heard.[20] Denial of due process suffices to cast on the official act taken by whatever branch of the government the impress of nullity.[21]