Power of the Judiciary:People vs. Judge Azarraga GR No. 187117 and 187127 October 12, 2011

Facts: 

 

On 7 February 2009, petitioner filed two (2) Informations before RTC of Iloilo City against private respondent Prevendido for violation of R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The cases were raffled to Branch 36, a designated special court pursuant to R.A. 9165, presided by Judge Victor E. Gelvezon but the latter inhibited himself from trying the case as Judge Galvezon had close family ties with Coreen Gemarino, the PDEA operative who conducted the entrapment operation against private respondent. The cases were then reassigned to the other special court, Branch 25, presided by Judge Evelyn E. Salao, who also inhibited herself for the reason that Coreen Gemarino was a cousin; thus, the cases were endorsed to the Office of the Executive Judge for reassignment.

 

Citing Chap. V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, Executive Judge Antonio M. Natino ordered the Clerk of Court to forward the entire records of the cases to Branch 37 presided over by public respondent, the pairing judge of Branch 36, which was the special court that originally handled the cases.

Issue: 

 

Did the Supreme Court violate Sec. 90 of RA 9165 when it issued AM 03-8-02-SC, particularly Ch. 5, Sec. 9, which prescribes the manner in which the executive judge reassigns cases in instances of inhibition or disqualification of judges sitting in special courts?

Ruling: 

 

No. The Supreme Court did not commit any violation of R.A. 9165 when it issued the assailed guidelines. Rather, it merely obeyed Article VIII, Sec. 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that the rules promulgated by the SC should provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, in conformity with the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

 

Under R.A. 9165, Congress empowered the Supreme Court with the full discretion to designate special courts to hear, try and decide drug cases. It was precisely in the exercise of this discretionary power that the powers of the executive judge were included in Chap. V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC vis-à-vis Sec. 5(5) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, in cases of inhibition or disqualification, the executive judge is mandated to assign the drug case to a regular court in the following order: first, to the pairing judge of the special court where the case was originally assigned; and, second, if the pairing judge is likewise disqualified or has inhibited himself, then to another regular court through a raffle. Under these exceptional circumstances, the SC designated the regular court, ipso facto, as a special court – but only for that case. Being a “designated special court,” it is likewise bound to follow the relevant rules in trying and deciding the drug case pursuant to R.A. 9165