To belabor the obvious, the determination of whether or not a judgement or order is unjust — or was (or was not) rendered within the scope of the issuing judge's authority, or that the judge had exceeded his jurisdiction and powers or maliciously delayed the disposition of a case — is an essentially judicial function, lodged by existing law and immemorial practice in a hierarchy of courts and ultimately in the highest court of the land. To repeat, no other entity or official of the Government, not the prosecution or investigation service or any other branch; nor any functionary thereof, has competence to review a judicial order or decision — whether final and executory or not — and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or order. That prerogative belongs to the courts alone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAUL DEL ROSARIO Y NIEBRES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAUL DEL ROSARIO Y NIEBRES, ACCUSED...
-
But first, a peek at the Regalian principle and the power of the executive to reclassify lands of the public domain. The 1935 Constitution ...
-
As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have adopted the generally accepted principles of International Law. ...
-
Command responsibility, sometimes referred to as the Yamashita standard or the Medina standard, is the doctrine of hierarchical accountabili...
No comments:
Post a Comment