Court of Appeals justices will meet Friday to come up with clearer definition of its internal rules and avoid a repeat of the fiasco that shamed the judiciary.

Justice Regalado Maambong, chair of the 15th division, told abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak that the chairs of the 23 CA divisions will meet and submit proposed changes in the Internal Rules of the CA for consideration by the rules committee.

The revision of the IRCA is one of the sweeping reforms that the CA magistrates have agreed among themselves to correct perceived flaws and restore its integrity.

Expected to be reviewed is the rule on jurisdiction of cases, especially in instances where a justice retires or goes on a leave of absence. The question of jurisdiction becomes more complex if the retiring justice is the ponente or writer of the decision.

The issue of jurisdiction was initially the bone of contention among Justices Jose Sabio, Bienvenido Reyes and Vicente Roxas over the simple yet controversial corporate row involving power distributor Meralco and the Government Service Insurance System.

Reyes was chair of the division that was hearing the Meralco case but was replaced by Sabio when he took a leave of absence. However, Sabio refused to vacate the slot when Reyes returned from his leave of absence. The ponente of the case, Roxas, took the case with him to the 8th division where he was moved following a reorganization, which did not sit well with Sabio.

The squabble spilled over into a bribery scandal, culminating in Roxas’s dismissal, Sabio’s suspension and censure on other CA justices, including Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez.

Maambong said one of his proposals is to clarify the rules on the disposal of cases, particulary those left pending by a retired justice. Even the raffle division has conflicting interpretations on this.

Example: Smith case

He cited the rape case of US Marine corporal Daniel Smith which is on appeal, as one example. Smith has been convicted by a lower court of raping a Filipina in Subic in 2005.

The status of the appeal is in limbo at present following the retirement of the assigned ponente, Justice Agustin Dizon, last June 27.  The two other justices handling the case are Maambong and Apolinario Bruselas. Jr.

Since Dizon’s retirement, a replacement is yet to be named, and this gives rise to the question on who has now jurisdiction of the rape case. Maambong sought to inquire with the raffle division and he was initially told that it would be re-raffled among the justices.

But in a separate discussion with Bruselas, the latter argued that if the Smith rape case would be re-raffled, then all other cases left pending by Dizon would have to be re-distributed as well. Maambong said he saw Bruselas’s point and went to the raffle division for the second time for a clarification.

But this time, Maambong was told that Dizon’s pending cases would be assumed by his replacement, unless there is a request for a special raffle. “I had to write a letter to Bruselas to inform him about the change of position by the raffle division.”

If the decision is to transfer the rape case to Dizon’s replacement, there is also a possibility that another division would be handing the case if the replacement is assigned to a different division, Maambong pointed out. “In such a case, where does that leave me and Bruselas? Are we now out of the case?”

Zero backlog, inhibition

The issue of who would take over the pending cases also has a bearing on case disposal, which the CA justices have vowed to improve as part of their wide-ranging reforms.

“Everybody wants to have a zero backlog before they retire, because there is a P100,000 bonus for zero backlog,” Maambong said. Maambong is set to retire in six months.

Another recommendation could be strengthening the powers of the Presiding Justice, in particular, to include issues surrounding the inhibition of justices. Under the rules, Maambong said inhibition is discretionary on the part of the justice and the Presiding Justice has no say.

Inhibitions have been an easy excuse for justices in refusing to handle controversial cases but it has also led to delays in resolution of cases, Maambong noted.

In the Smith rape case, for instance, two justices have inhibited themselves, citing various reasons. Justice Vicente Veloso backed out from participating in the case, saying that his daughter is associated with one of Smith’s lawyers. Justice Celia Librea-Lealogo also inhibited, citing  “close association with one of the parties.”

Maambong said as head of the CA, the Presiding Justice could and should exercise moral suasion among the justices to be judicious in resorting to inhibitions. “It prolongs the resolution of a case,” he noted.

Parties to the case add to the delay by seeking the inhibition of justices. Sometimes, members of the entire division inhibit themselves out of sympathy to a colleague who is being asked to inhibit. The case is then raffled to a new division.

“Maybe that should be looked into, whether the Presiding Justice can stop an inhibition,” Maambong said

In the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice exercises some form of moral suasion among his colleagues on matters of inhibition. In the CA controversy for instance, we learned that Chief Justice Reynato asked three colleagues not to inhibit, since there are already two who have indicated they would not be participating. Puno, who was one of two who inhibited (the other is Justice Antonio Carpio), prevailed on the justices.