SC in decision-writing mode, suspends hearing

At present, the Supreme Court (SC) is in a decision-writing period, it means there won’t be any en banc or division hearings until 13 May.

However, the newly-appointed Court spokesperson, Atty. Camille Sue Mae Ting, disclosed that the en banc or divisions can still issue resolutions, especially on cases with “transcendental importance.”

“Not necessarily, the Justices in charge can always recommend actions on cases, and the divisions or en banc can issue resolutions if the division chair or Chief Justice (for the en banc) concurs with the recommended action. This will then be confirmed during the next regular session,” Ting told reporters.

The remark was mahe by Ting when asked if cases like the re-pleaded issuance for a temporary restraining order (TRO) sought by transport groups against the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP), and the Justice Department’s request for a transfer of venue in the child abuse case against Pastor Apollo Quiboloy, would have to wait until the SC resumes session.

“Technically, the SC is not on recess. It is their decision-writing period, which started on 22 April 2024, and will end on 10 May 2024. During this period, the Court is also conducting the Shari’ah Bar exams and having regional consultations on the ULAS and the Office of the Regional Court Manager (ORCM),” Ting said.

The other day, the Pagkakaisa ng mga Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Opereytor Nationwide (PISTON), other transport groups, and non-governmental organizations, have renewed its call to the SC for the issuance of a TRO stopping the government’s PUVMP.

In a 17-page supplemental petition, they challenged various Department of Transportation and Land Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board issuances, including DOTr Department Order No. 2017-011, the catalyst for the modernization program, and LTFRB MC 2023-051.

They argued that these directives violate constitutional rights to freedom of association and the voluntary nature of cooperatives under Republic Act No. 9250.

The DOJ also requested the high bench through the Office of the Court Administrator to allow Quiboloy’s child abuse case to be transferred from a court in Davao City to Metro Manila.

But Quiboloy’s legal team also requested permission to file a comment on the DOJ’s request for a transfer of venue.