News & Events
-
Read more...
Manila Bulletin Article
The Better Half: Must love dogs
And other trade storiesBy JOHNINA MARTHA MARFA... -
Read more...
Following a revived concern on illegal drugs due to the recent case involving the "Alabang Boys",...
-
Read more...
In line with the implementation of Republic Act No. 9417 (An Act to Strengthen the Office of the Solicitor General by Expanding and Streamlining its Bureaucracy, Upgrading Employees Ski...
-
A bloody OSG Celebrates.Read more...
No, not because of any chaos or disaster but because OSG decided to open its month-long anniversa...
| CA denied contempt raps against the military |
|
The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the motion to cite in contempt the military officials who are respondents to a petition for a writ of amparo filed by the families of the two missing University of the Philippines students, Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeño. Cadapan and Empeño were allegedly abducted by soldiers in June 2006 in Hagonoy, Bulacan. The families of Cadapan and Empeño claimed that the respondents are in contempt of court for their failure to abide by the CA's decision, which ordered them “to immediately release, or cause the release, from detention the persons of Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeño, and Manuel Merino.” The CA disagreed with the families of the missing students. The appellate court’s Special Former Eleventh Division said that while it had ordered respondents retired Generals Jovito Palparan and Romeo Tolentino, Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson and Arnel Enriquez to “immediately release” the two from detention, its order issued on 18 September 2008 was not executory. “The use of the term ‘immediately’ does not mean that it is automatically executory. There is nothing in the rules on the writ of amparo that states that a decision rendered is immediately executory,” the appellate court said. The court added that it could not cite in contempt the military officials due to the absence of a basis as the families have yet to file a motion for execution pending the appeal of the decision. “There being no motion, the court could not have issued, and did not issue, a writ of execution. There being no writ of execution, there is no order of the court being violated or ignored by the respondents,” the court said. The CA’s decision denying the contempt motion was penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza and concurred with by Associate Justices Monina Arevalo Zenarosa and Sesinando Villon. The case was handled for the OSG by Assistant Solicitor Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and Associate Solicitor Blessilda B. Abad-Gamo, who represented the respondents. (By: Mark Kristopher Tolentino, OSG Web Team) |
